Saturday, July 10, 2021

REBECCA DOWNS - Maybe People Don't Know About Biden Successes Because They're So Few - WHAT?!?!?! - YOU THINK BIDEN'S BILLIONAIRE CRONIES AND BANKSTERS ARE HURTING?!?!?


ILLEGALS THINK BIDEN'S INVASION IS AN INCREDIBLE SUCCESS. THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED FOR HIM.

Maybe People Don't Know About Biden Successes Because They're So Few

Rebecca Downs
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2021 2:45 PM
I\
Maybe People Don't Know About Biden Successes Because They're So Few

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Natasha Korecki in her piece for POLITICO on Friday highlighted the concerns of Unite the Country, described by Korecki as this "pro-Biden super PAC." Not only is it pro-Biden, it's solely dedicated to being pro-Biden. The group's concern is that people don't know enough about President Joe Biden's successes, and it could cost them in 2022.

According to a memo from late June based off of focus group conducted in battleground states, which POLITICO obtained, Biden's "proposals remain worryingly undefined in the public consciousness and voters are primed with misinformation that helps Republican justify their opposition." It also mentioned that "Democrats must communicate much more aggressively to define success for the [American Rescue Plan] and to explain why it is important to pass the American Jobs Act and the American Families Plan."

The memo would go on to bash "Fox-News driven spin" for "a real lack of information about the specifics of the Biden Agenda."

As Korecki also wrote when it comes to the memo's concerns for lack of knowledge about these successes:

They not only sow doubt in President Joe Biden’s ability to avoid the typical losses the party in the White House faces during a president’s first midterm election, but serve as a reminder of the difficulties that come in translating policy initiatives into political successes. Having pledged to avoid the missteps of the Obama years — in which officials acknowledged that they failed to sell their stimulus bill to the public — the Unite the Country memo suggests that Biden may be succumbing to the same fate. Though the president and Cabinet members have visited specific states touting their plans, and ad campaigns have been launched to supplement those efforts, the message isn’t reaching middle America.

Historically the party in charge of the White House loses seats in the House and the Senate, as Korecki mentioned. It doesn't look like Biden will "avoid" that history either. This is especially relevant considering that the Democratic majority in the House is in the single digits. Far more Republicans were elected in 2020 than predicted. And, Democrats only have a majority in the 50-50 Senate because Vice President Kamala Harris is the tie-breaking vote. 

But there's more to it, beyond the fate of historical precedence and the numbers that the Democrats have or don't have. 

Biden may have had his honeymoon period of high popularity ratings, but those ratings are dropping. They're particularly sinking when it comes to crime especially, but also issues like guns and immigrations. The president is losing favor among fellow Democrats on these issues too, according to multiple polls.

The American Rescue Plan received no Republican support; even two Democrats voted against it in the House. 

On this bipartisan infrastructure plan, the president quickly tainted this hope for bipartisan success by tying it to the partisan, astronomically costly $6 trillion budget proposal. While he walked it back, it was likely too little too late. Biden did himself no favors.

Further, the Democrats are behaving as if they have a mandate, when they don't. And, the Biden administration is one consumed with this farce of "equity," resulting in culture war concerns when it comes to an agenda preoccupied with forcing taxpayers to fund abortionspromoting Critical Race Theory, pushing the concept of transgender children, and taking out words like mother and woman and replacing with "birthing person."

Democrats are almost certain to lose seats come 2022. And it shouldn't come as a shock, at all.

In May, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us hired a former assistant Senate parliamentarian to craft a plan for Democrats that would pass amnesty for illegal aliens through reconciliation.

Democrats, along with some House Republicans, have the support of a large amnesty coalition which includes former President George W. Bush, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and a number of Koch brothers-backed organizations.

Already, current immigration levels put downward pressure on U.S. wages

Biden Antitrust Executive Order Has Major Giveaway for Tech Giants

Order recommends restoring net neutrality, preventing tech mergers

President Biden Delivers Remarks On His Racial Equity Agenda And Signs Executive Actions
President Biden signs an executive order in Jan. / Getty Images
 • July 9, 2021 4:10 pm

SHARE

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a sweeping executive order that targets big tech mergers but includes a provision favored by most tech giants.

The order instructs the Federal Trade Commission to more closely monitor merger attempts by "dominant internet platforms" and to restrict how tech companies can exploit users' personal information. But it also recommends that the Federal Communication Commission restore net neutrality rules, which prevent internet providers from making distinctions among users. Tech giants like Facebook and Amazon support net neutrality because it bars internet providers from charging platforms based on their broadband use.

The order signals the Biden administration's confused approach to big tech regulation. At the signing ceremony, the president called out big tech directly, describing the executive order as an effort to promote "fair competition," one of the administration's priorities. But Biden still has not nominated a nominee for assistant attorney general for antitrust, a major enforcement position. Congress is considering considers legislative proposals to regulate the biggest tech companies, but there is little consensus on what approach to take.

Politico reported that the executive order was shaped in part by Tim Wu, a professor now serving in the Biden administration as a special adviser on economic and tech policy. Wu and FTC chairwoman Lina Khan have been some of the administration's most aggressive voices in calling for increased scrutiny of major tech companies.

Wu is one of the most ardent proponents of net neutrality, a term he coined in 2003. The Trump administration rolled back net neutrality regulations in 2017 in an attempt to increase broadband competition. At the time, Democratic lawmakers and social media giants warned that the change would lead to providers restricting users' internet access and discriminating against certain content providers. Those concerns proved to be overblown, though Facebook and Twitter have recently come under fire for discriminating against conservative content.

One of the order's provisions seems aimed at Amazon. It calls for rules barring internet marketplaces from exploiting their power by copying the products of smaller sellers on their platforms. The order will likely increase regulatory scrutiny of Amazon's planned purchase of MGM Studios.

The order contains a variety of "suggestions" for independent agencies, which prompted accusations from industry groups and think tanks that the administration is pressuring agencies to fall in line. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank that takes funding from big tech companies, said, "The White House is attempting to meddle into the work of federal antitrust agencies."

The order also contains a variety of non-tech related provisions, including a request for the Department of Agriculture to issue additional rules to support small farmers and meatpackers. And it asks the FTC to issue rules banning "unnecessary occupational licensing restrictions," the practice of requiring employees to obtain a license before entering certain industries.


THE 8 YEAR 'HOPE & CHANGE' BANKSTER REGIME OF LAWYER BARACK OBAMA, LAWYER JOE BIDEN AND LAWYER ERIC HOLDER WITNESSED THE GREATEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO THE RICH IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY. 

THIS IS WHY THE BANKSTERS AND CRIMINALS ON WALL STREET GOT BEHIND THE BIDEN-HARRIS CORPORATIST REGIME NOW IN PLACE.

ARE YOU DOUBTFUL THE RICH ARE GETTING MUCH, MUCH, MUCH RICHER UNDER BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER JOE BIDEN?

DURING THE SO CALLED OBAMA RECOVER, TWO-THIRDS OF ALL JOBS WENT TO FOREIGN BORN. HIGH TECH WORKERS IMPORTED IN TO WORK CHEAP AND ILLEGALS WHO GOT ALL THE OTHER JOBS.

GOOD TIME TO ADD THAT BIDEN HAS DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO !NOT! PROSECUTE CORPORATE CRIMINALS. OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE BIDEN'S BIGGEST DONORS.

Report: Joe Biden Promises Wall Street Donors the Status Quo in Private Calls

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising Wall Street donors the economic status quo that they became used to before President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report.


Microsoft Exemption From Antitrust Bill Followed Company Donation to Top Democrat

Rhode Island congressman David Cicilline swore off big tech money in 2019

Rep. David Cicilline/ Youtube Screenshot
 • June 24, 2021 11:35 am

SHARE

Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) exempted Microsoft from a bill he sponsored to regulate big tech three months after he received $5,800 in donations from Microsoft president Brad Smith, FEC filings show.

Cicilline's decision to accept the money marked an about-face for the Rhode Island congressman, who swore off big tech money in 2019. Cicilline is the lead sponsor of the American Choice and Innovation Online Act, which would ban tech companies above a certain size from using their platforms to unfairly promote their own products. The bill originally applied to platforms with 500,000 monthly active users. Earlier this month, the threshold was quietly changed to 50 million active users, a change that would exempt Microsoft.

Cicilline did not explain why the bill text had changed to exclude Microsoft. But the donation from Microsoft’s CEO raises questions of how much influence tech companies have over bills designed to regulate their industry. In 2019, Cicilline announced he would not take money from big tech companies.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee debated a package of bills that would force big tech companies to provide data to competitors and give the Federal Trade Commission more tools to regulate them. Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) displayed an early draft of the bill marked "confidential Microsoft" obtained from a whistleblower, and suggested that Microsoft had received an early copy. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) proposed an amendment that would make Microsoft subject to the bill once again, which was defeated in an 18-25 vote.

Brad Smith has bragged about his company’s close ties to the Hill, telling CNBC "there are times when I call people who I don’t personally know, and somebody will say ‘you know, your folks have always shown up for me at my events. And we have a good relationship. Let me see what I can do to help you.’" When Microsoft attempted to buy TikTok, Smith personally called dozens of lawmakers to push the bid through.

As pressure on tech from Washington has increased over the past year, so has aggressive lobbying from big tech companies. Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly called Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday to complain that the antitrust bills were rushed. The bills are the products of an 18-month House investigation into market power in the tech industry.

The lobbying pressure has not gone unnoticed on the Hill. In a June 22 Senate hearing, Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) was visibly frustrated as he blasted "well compensated lobbyists and their nonprofit proxies" who "pervert conservative economic and legal philosophy into a defense of big tech monopoly." Facebook and Amazon are now the largest corporate lobbying spenders in the country.

Cicilline’s spokesman claimed in April 2021 that he does not accept money from executives at tech firms. At the time, Politico noted that Cicilline had received $1,000 from a lobbyist for Apple. Smith has praised Cicilline in the past.

Microsoft has recently censored terms offensive to the Chinese Communist Party, including "Tiananmen Square" and "tank man," from its search engine Bing. It also banned discussion of the "lab leak" hypothesis from LinkedIn, the social networking platform it owns.

Published under: Big TechCampaign FinanceMicrosoft

MODERN SLAVER JEFF ' BEZOSHEAD' BEZOS IS ONE OF BIDEN'S BIGGEST DONORS

Biden Admin Tells Struggling Small Businesses To Work More With Amazon

U.S. Commercial Service partners with Big Tech to promote international trade

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks at the White House in 2016 / Getty Images
 • June 23, 2021 5:00 am

SHARE

The federal government is steering small businesses to do more business with Amazon to help them recover from the economic crisis prompted by the pandemic.

The U.S. Commercial Service, a trade promotion agency, is hosting a series of "Go Global" webinars with Amazon in June to teach small businesses to access markets in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates by becoming sellers on the e-commerce behemoth. Some entrepreneurs are crying foul, blaming Amazon as the source of their woes.

Gina Schaefer opened up her first hardware store in Logan Circle, Washington, D.C., in 2003. Alongside her husband, she expanded the business to 13 locally owned hardware stores, employing roughly 300 people in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia metro areas. She said a retailer like Amazon is the last place to which the federal government should turn to help small businesses.

"The larger Amazon has gotten, the fewer number of independent businesses we have," Schaefer told the Washington Free Beacon. "One by one industries have been picked off by predatory pricing and overlooked government regulations to the point where starting a new business, at least in the retail sector, is nearly impossible."

The agency's webinars with Amazon are designed to get clients for the web giant. The lessons on offer at the June 15 event included helping businesses create Amazon Global Accounts. A follow-up webinar in July will teach entrepreneurs how to not only team up with Amazon but also with U.S. trade authorities.

"We will cover … how to sign up for a [Amazon] Global Seller Account … [and] the role the U.S. Commercial Service plays in providing comprehensive export counseling to support your global business strategy," the event page says. "We'll connect you … to explore free resources and government funding to support your e-Commerce and export-related activities."

In response to Amazon's growing market dominance, small businesses are forming coalitions seeking to leverage anti-trust legislation to ensure that they are not crushed. Schaefer, a member of the Small Business Rising coalition, said the Commercial Service partnership with Amazon will further undermine small businesses as they struggle in the post-lockdown economy to stay independently viable. Like many other small business owners in retail, she supports the idea of Amazon being broken up.

"No one ever envisions that street empty or only populated by a soulless Amazon store.  Yet businesses are failing at alarming rates now, in large part to concentrated market power," Schaefer said.

Amazon has maintained close ties with American trade officials over the years. It employed 28 lobbyists working on trade issues in 2020 and 2021 as part of its multimillion-dollar influence operation, according to federal lobbying records. Seven of those lobbyists held high-ranking trade-related positions at the federal government, including at the U.S. Commercial Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, before joining the Silicon Valley giant. Its leadership has also been closely allied to Democrats, with employees contributing more than $2 million to the Biden campaign and 75 percent of its donations going to benefit Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Representatives from the U.S. Commercial Service and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.

Small business advocates say that the mass closures of mom-and-pop stores during the pandemic require bold steps from lawmakers. Sarah Crozier, of Main Street Alliance, faulted the Biden administration for promoting Amazon rather than cracking down on alleged market manipulations.

"The federal government is critical to help level the playing field for small businesses by improving anti-monopoly protections against giants like Amazon and creating opportunity for small businesses," Crozier said.

Some lawmakers have begun speaking out against Amazon's sway within the administration and on Capitol Hill. Rep. Ralph Norman (R., S.C.) said Amazon has not proven to be a faithful business partner to the third party sellers that populate its website.

"From motor oil to children's clothing, we need to know if the oddly random (and growing) list of Amazon's own products were identified and developed by exploiting sales & product data from its third party sellers. And we need to know why there are countless reports of retaliatory and anti-competitive conduct from Amazon," Norman said. "On multiple fronts, Amazon has given us plenty to be concerned with. Congress needs answers about the rampant reports of harmful and monopolistic behavior from that company."


Joe Biden: ‘I’m a Proud Capitalist’

US President Joe Biden speaks during an executive order signing regarding competition in the State Dining Room of the White House July 9, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

President Joe Biden said outright Friday that he is “a proud capitalist” despite praising big government and pushing socialists polices that are anti-free market.

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

Biden’s policies for which he advocates in his trojan horse infrastructure package seem to mirror that definition. A few of them include the following:

  1. Subsidized community college;
  2. Subsidized preschool;
  3. Increasing subsidies for low-income housing;
  4. Subsidizing advanced racial equity and environmental justice;
  5. Subsidized loans to Tribes, territories, and disadvantaged communities across the country;
  6. Subsidizing a new federal bureaucracy of the office at the Department of Commerce;
  7. Subsidizing the Dislocated Workers Program and sector-based training;
  8. Increasing subsidies for child tax credits;
  9. Subsidized child care facilities;
  10. Subsidized the supply of child care;
  11. Subsidized Community Revitalization Fund;
  12. Subsidizing of Neighborhood Homes Investment Act tax credits;
  13. Subsidized funding to ensure new jobs created in clean energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure are open and accessible to women and people of color;
  14. Subsidized to ensure employers are providing workers with good jobs – including jobs with fair and equal pay, safe and healthy workplaces, and workplaces free from racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination and harassment;
  15. Subsidize a Civilian Climate Corps;
  16. Subsidize funding for other climate-focused research;
  17. Subsidize the Rural Partnership Program to help rural regions, including Tribal Nations;
  18. Subsidize community violence prevention programs.

Biden is also working with self-designated socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to enact the trojan horse reconciliation package that is rumored to be worth $6 trillion.

The establishment media has also praised Biden for being the “Second Coming” of former big government presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, who, between the two of them, enacted some of the largest, most distributive programs in American history, which include Medicare, Medicaid, and the New Deal, which included social security and the creation of several large federal agencies.

OBAMA-BIDENOMICS: THERE IS A REASON WHY ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS.

In the second quarter of 2020, the bottom 50 percent of households—some 165 million people—held $2.08 trillion, or $12,600 per person, while the richest one percent of the population controlled $34.2 trillion, i.e., over $10.4 million per person. In percentile terms, the top one percent of the population held 30.5 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 50 percent controlled only 1.9 percent.


Bokhari: Globalist Elites Celebrate Victory over the Masses at Sun Valley

Michael Bloomberg at Sun Valley
Kevin Dietsch /Getty
3:49

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”

This 18th-century warning against cartels and corporate collusion from Adam Smith is worth considering in light of the gathering of billionaires, entertainment moguls, and the corporate media in Sun Valley, Idaho, this week.

As Breitbart’s Lucas Nolan reports, the estimated total wealth of attendees is over $588 billion, a number that is no doubt buoyed by the record profits made by billionaires during the pandemic while small businesses were forced to shut down.

The guest list includes tech titans like Jeff Bezos and Sheryl Sandberg, entertainment and media chiefs like Disney CEO Bob Iger, and figures from the mainstream corporate media including CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and Shari Redstone, the chairwoman of ViacomCBS.

There will doubtless be plenty of conspiring going on at this confab for the megawealthy and powerful, although there may also be a celebration of a conspiracy. The outcome of the 2020 election was in no small part determined by the open collusion of the wealthy and powerful, most blatantly Big Tech and Big Media, which now seek to legally cement their ties through the deceptively-named Journalism Competition and Preservation Act.

Are the attendees of the billionaire summer camp really “people of the same trade?” Maybe not, but they all come from the same class — the elites of what is becoming known as the Globalist American Empire. These are the people who, no matter the crisis, always manage to come out on top. After the financial crisis, they benefited.

As China rises, they benefit (nowhere is this clearer than in the case of Disney). As the pandemic spread from that same country, they benefited. If you measure America’s success by the prosperity of its citizens, the strength of its industrial base, its international reputation, its cohesion and national unity, then the country is not in good shape.

But if you measure it by the fortunes of the Globalist American Empire’s elites, things have never been better. The 2020s and the 1920s might, in the end, not look very different at all.
The only thing that threatens them is the danger of uprising from below, the danger that the people might somehow wrest back control of the system. The elites had a big scare in 2016, first with Brexit, and then with an even bigger scare a few months later when Trump won the election.

The elites eventually captured that administration, killing its radical energy, as they have done many times before. But the sense of panic was palpable — just look at the leaked video of Google’s town hall meeting following that election. They believed that a popular revolution had just taken place.

After a year in which Trump was ushered from office and governments around the world forced their citizens to stay in their homes, wear masks, and basically do as they’re told, Sun Valley’s attendees might be celebrating the setbacks for populism, and the restoration of their power over the uppity masses of the world.

But they must surely also be aware, at this point, of the fragility of their own wealth and power. Of how close they came to losing it all. Counter-revolutions, after all, are historically quite fleeting things. For the wiser of Sun Valley’s billionaires, there will be some nervousness amidst the celebration as well.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.





Owners like Steve Ballmer can take the kinds of deductions on team assets — everything from media deals to player contracts — that industrialists take on factory equipment. That helps them pay lower tax rates than players and even stadium workers.

WHICH OF THE BELOW FUCKERS ARE JOE BIDEN'S CRONIES? ALL OF THEM!

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The Billionaire Space Race

This month, the world is watching with bated breath as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Virgin’s Richard Branson dash toward the finish line in the space race of the 21st century. Since the dawn of time, man has looked to the sky and wondered: Who will be the first billionaire in space? The wait is now over.

Jeff Bezos exploring the universe (Image composition credit: WSWS Media)

Never mind the fact that 250 million more people live in extreme poverty than in early 2020, according to the World Bank, or that 1.5 billion informal workers living on the margins of society lost most or all of their income last year. This week, in some unknown hospital located somewhere on this planet, the 4 millionth person died of the coronavirus.

The pandemic has shown that the capitalist class is hostile to harnessing scientific advancement to meet the needs of the human race here on Earth. What better time for two men to pour billions of dollars into plans to launch themselves into space (actually, sub-orbital flight) to impress shareholders and have a bit of fun?

A substantial layer of the financial aristocracy unironically agrees. The same Scrooges who hoard their wealth in offshore tax havens so they don’t have to chip in for social programs were desperate to outbid one another for a seat on an upcoming billionaire space flight. At a recent auction, one poor sucker paid $29.7 million for a ticket aboard Bezos’s Blue Origin flight.

The Wall Street Journal described a gripping, absolutely ripping moment at the auction house: “Bidding opened at $4.9 million and rose quickly to $10 million before four participants competed to ultimately raise the price to $28 million. A 6 percent buyer’s commission is added to the winning bid, taking the final cost to $29.7 million. Blue Origin said 7,600 bidders from 159 countries registered for the event.”

Team Bezos and Team Branson are engaged in petty sniping over who will be the “real” first billionaire out of the atmosphere. It isn’t exactly Kennedy and Khrushchev.

Branson brags that he will depart sooner, but Bezos claims that Branson is too chicken to travel as far out as he. A Bezos spokesman told the New York Times, “We wish [Branson] a great and safe flight, but they’re not flying above the Karman line and it’s a very different experience.” The Karman line is located 62 miles above Earth and is used by scientists to mark the line between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space.

Amazon workers have many guesses as to why Bezos is so eager to make it into space. There are no taxes out there, surely, and since a day on the Moon is the equivalent of 27 here on Earth, that means a worker’s 14-hour shift would be the equivalent of 380 hours of labor, and try making that without a bathroom break! Or maybe Bezos figures if he sets up shop on the far side of the Moon no pesky reporters will be able to expose the sweat shop conditions that exist inside.

On the other hand, what is not for Bezos to like here on Earth? Democratic and Republican politicians line up to hand him billions in subsidies, and there are hundreds of administrative judges and doctors ready to help deny workers’ compensation claims.

Actually, Bezos himself explained what the venture is really about in a 2019 interview with CNBC:

We send things up into space, but they are all made on Earth. Eventually it will be much cheaper and simpler to make really complicated things, like microprocessors and everything, in space and then send those highly complex manufactured objects back down to Earth, so that we don’t have the big factories and pollution generating industries that make those things now on Earth. And Earth can be zoned residential.

In other words, Bezos’ actual desire is to build factories on the Moon and on Mars, where presumably all the workers will be forced to live, since nobody working at Amazon is going to have the time or the energy to make the commute back to Earth.

It seems that all Earthlings are happy about Bezos and Branson leaving the planet. Over 150,000 people signed a petition on change.org titled “To the proletariat: Do not allow Jeff Bezos to return to Earth.” The petitioners explain, “Billionaires should not exist ... on earth, or in space, but should they decide the latter, they should stay there.”

We at the World Socialist Web Site wish only that there was extra room in those space pods for Henry Kissinger.

The fantastic scientific gains of recent years, as expressed in such “giant leaps” as the 2012 Mars rover, only show the potential for harnessing the technological and intellectual capacities of mankind to meet human need. The rover, “Curiosity,” is still rolling across the surface of Mars, gathering data and samples that promise to open up new pathways to the understanding of our Solar System. It is an insult to humanity’s remarkable drive for scientific development that such advances are now used, under capitalism, to satisfy the megalomania of two individuals who pass on what they learn to the weapons manufacturers and intelligence agencies.

But there is something more than megalomania in Bezos’ and Branson’s strange desire to personally travel into space. In his 2016 novel Zero K, Don DeLillo captures something of the instability of an aristocratic layer that knows it is destroying the planet and sitting on a social powder keg.

The novel features an aging hedge fund manager who joins an elite group of billionaires and statesmen who cryogenically freeze themselves, clinging to the possibility of eternal life. One group member explains to the oligarchs that burying their frozen bodies deep down in the Earth will make them safe from revolution, war or climate disaster, and allow them to live until a time when they can rule again:

Your situation, those few of you on the verge of the journey toward rebirth. You are completely outside the narrative of what we refer to as history. You are about to become, each of you, a single life in touch only with yourself. That world, the one above, is being lost to the systems. To the transparent networks that slowly occlude the flow of all those aspects of nature and character that distinguish humans from elevator buttons and doorbells.

Like the French and Russian aristocracies swept away by the revolutions of 1789 and 1917, an entire social layer comprised of Bezoses and Bransons see itself as belonging to a class of people who are “out of this world.” Their interests are directly hostile to those of the broad masses of the world’s population, who comprise the working class, whom they exploit to acquire astronomical wealth. If Jeff Bezos makes it into space, it will only be on the backs of the Amazon workers he exploited and ground up to make profit.

Only a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism can sweep social parasites and exploiters like these from atop the commanding heights of the economy and harness the immense technological advances of humankind to serve the interests of billions of people.

What the growing class struggle in the US reveals about the pseudo-left

Both in the United States and in other countries, workers are engaging in an upsurge of strikes and militant struggles, seeking to reverse decades of worsening living standards and working conditions. As has often been the case, the development of the class struggle is shedding light on fundamental aspects of contemporary social and political life, putting to the test political programs and tendencies.

Striking Volvo Truck workers (Source: UAW Local 2069/Facebook)

Shortly after midnight on Monday, nearly 600 Frito-Lay workers in Topeka, Kansas, walked out in the first strike at the facility since at least the early 1970s, when the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers union (BCTGM) initially established a presence at the plant. Last week, workers at the snack food giant overwhelmingly rejected a fourth contract proposal this year, defying the BCTGM’s efforts to pass a deal that failed to meet workers’ demands for substantial raises to make up for years in which pay has been virtually frozen.

The Frito-Lay strike is the latest in a recent series of rebellions against company-union concessionary agreements. At Volvo Trucks’ New River Valley plant in Virginia, roughly 2,900 workers are entering the second month of their strike after overwhelmingly voting down two contracts pushed by the United Auto Workers. The contracts would have significantly raised health care costs and throttled wage increases. At Warrior Met Coal in Alabama, striking miners rejected a United Mine Workers-backed contract in April by a stunning 1,006 to 45 vote, burning copies of the pro-company agreement outside the union hall.

And beyond the US, nickel miners employed at transnational firm Vale Inco’s northern Ontario operations are continuing their strike after overwhelmingly rejecting a United Steelworkers-backed contract which would have kept raises far below inflation.

In every struggle that is taking place, workers are fighting against appalling conditions of exploitation previously agreed to and enforced by the trade unions, which have spent the last 40 years integrating themselves more and more deeply into management and the capitalist state. As the recent wave of contract rejections shows, workers are now moving into increasingly open conflict with the present joint corporate-union efforts to maintain these conditions and deepen the attacks.

For any genuinely left-wing organization, let alone socialist or Marxist one, such a renewal in the fighting capacity of the working class—and its opposition to the agencies operating on behalf of the corporations—is to be not only welcomed, but aided and encouraged to the maximum degree, which has been the response of the World Socialist Web Site, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and its affiliated Socialist Equality Parties.

But this is the opposite of the reaction of a host of parties and publications that present themselves as left-wing or socialist.

Most striking has been the response—or lack of response—to the strike at Volvo Trucks by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its most prominent media outlet, Jacobin magazine. To date, Jacobin has not published a single article on the struggle at Volvo, which has been ongoing since April, nor has the DSA issued any official statements.

The silence by the DSA and Jacobin on the Volvo strike has been mirrored to one degree or another throughout the entirety of what falsely presents itself as the “left” in the United States, from Socialist Alternative, which has also published zero articles on the strike, to Left Voice and Labor Notes, which have published only cursory reports.

In the little coverage that has appeared in these publications, there is no mention of the Volvo Workers Rank-and-File Committee, which has played a leading role in organizing opposition at the Virginia plant where workers are striking. The one notable exception to the media blackout on the VWRFC was an article that appeared in Counterpunch (“The Volvo Strike,” by Kenneth Surin), which did note that workers at the plant “have a deep distrust of their union, so much so that they formed the Volvo Workers Rank-and-File Committee to counter the UAW’s attempt to isolate striking workers.”

It is worth contrasting the overall reticence on the struggle at Volvo by organizations such as the DSA with the wall-to-wall coverage and support they gave to the unionization drive at Amazon’s facility in Bessemer, Alabama. The drive to bring in a union at Bessemer was a top-down, state-approved effort that received the official blessing of the Biden administration, the Democratic Party, and even sections of the Republican Party, along with substantial portions of the corporate media.

While Jacobin has published nothing on the Volvo strike, it produced close to 50 articles on the drive by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) to unionize Amazon. Socialist Alternative produced 15 articles, Left Voice 10, and Labor Notes eight.

Under conditions of a growing movement of the working class against the pro-corporate trade unions, the pseudo-left is moving to shore up the very same trade union apparatus, bitterly opposing any independent initiative and organization of the working class. The DSA has stated that its “highest national priority” is to ensure passage of the Protect the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, a Democratic Party-sponsored bill aimed at bolstering support for the trade unions, in particular their ability to “organize” the growing sections of workers who are not unionized, such as gig workers at Uber, Lyft and Doordash.

The differing responses of the DSA and other pseudo-left groups to every state-backed effort to expand the unions—boundless enthusiasm—versus the rebellion against the UAW at Volvo—frosty silence—is itself an expression of the social basis and political orientation of such organizations, which do not represent the working class, but rather privileged sections of the upper-middle class.

The pseudo-left endlessly insists on the supremacy of the corporate police agencies falsely described as “unions” because of the role they play in disciplining workers and subordinating them to the Democratic Party, which these groups all either operate within or are oriented towards.

Not least among the reasons that the DSA has said nothing about the Volvo strike is the central role played by the WSWS and the Socialist Equality Party, which have assisted workers in forming the VWRFC and found a wide hearing among those opposed to the corporatist UAW. While the DSA routinely denounces the WSWS as “sectarian,” what they really fear is the growth of its influence among the working class and the possibility of a broad movement of workers towards socialism, which would threaten the considerable investment accounts of the upper-middle class layers which the DSA and Jacobin represent.

Their conception of a “labor movement” is one that is thoroughly integrated into the state and corporate management, with sections of the middle class functioning as arbiters. This means, under the present conditions, a “labor movement” that is dedicated above all to the suppression of the class struggle and the imposition of the demands of the ruling class.

An increasing number of members of the pseudo-left organizations have made their way into the union hierarchy and the wealth and privileges offered, with perhaps the most prominent recent example being Jesse Sharkey, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, formerly a long-time leading member of the defunct International Socialist Organization, and now the DSA.

The integration of the pseudo-left into the structure of the unions has coincided with the unions’ own transformation into auxiliaries of the corporations and the state, increasingly unable to conceal their subservience to corporate profits and contempt for workers’ interests.

Beginning in earnest with the defeat of the PATCO air traffic controllers strike nearly 40 years ago, which was deliberately isolated and broken by the AFL-CIO, the unions have worked to ensure a highly regimented and controlled labor force wherever they hold sway, with pay low enough to make US workers “competitive” on an international scale.

The trade unions have hemorrhaged members throughout this time, both through the destruction of large swaths of jobs in the auto, steel and other industries—which the unions suppressed resistance to—and through the increasing rejection of the unions by workers who have witnessed or suffered through their endless betrayals.

The inability of the RWDSU to get more than 13 percent of workers at the Amazon Bessemer plant to vote to bring it in is not an expression of a rightward movement of workers. It is, rather, another expression of the same moods that led to massive repudiations of union-backed contracts at Volvo and Frito-Lay.

The union executives and officials have nonetheless grown rich in the process. Objectively speaking, they have made their way into a different social class than workers, drawing salaries in the low- to mid-hundreds of thousands, placing them in the top 5 or even 1 percent of income earners. They have shifted a growing share of their assets and wealth into the stock market, making them, like their confreres in the pseudo-left, increasingly hostile towards and terrified of any movement of workers that could overturn the low-wage regime on which US corporate profits and inflated share values are based.

The union apparatuses in the US, which for much of their history have been dominated by a ferocious anti-communism and support for capitalism, have shifted even further to the right politically, in line with the change in their material interests, constituting now a hothouse for the most reactionary nationalism, corporatism and even fascistic politics.

While the growing rebellion by workers against the unions runs counter to every position held by the pseudo-left, it vindicates the political prognoses of the WSWS and the ICFI.

At the time of the PATCO strike, the Workers League, predecessor of the SEP in the US, warned that the subservience of the AFL-CIO to capitalism and its main political parties would lead to one defeat after another, stressing that the “struggle against these betrayals cannot be based solely on militancy, but requires a political strategy for the struggle against the government.” Drawing a balance sheet of the defeats of the 1980s, culminating in the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy, the ICFI determined that the unions and other national labor bureaucracies were no longer capable, even in a limited capacity, of defending the interests of the working class.

On May Day this year, the ICFI took forward this perspective, issuing a call for the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC). The call for the IWA-RFC explained that it would “work to develop the framework for new forms of independent, democratic and militant rank-and-file organizations of workers in factories, schools and workplaces on an international scale,” and would “be a means through which workers throughout the world can share information and organize a united struggle.”

The struggle of workers at Volvo and elsewhere provide further confirmation that this perspective and these organizations are the road on which the class struggle will develop.

Report: Joe Biden Promises Wall Street Donors the Status Quo in Private Calls

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

8 Sep 2020343

3:50

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising Wall Street donors the economic status quo that they became used to before President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report.

An investment banker on Wall Street told the Washington Post that in private calls with financial executives two months ago, Biden’s campaign assured them that talk of populist reforms on the campaign trail was nothing more than talking points.

The Post reports:

When Joe Biden released economic recommendations two months ago, they included a few ideas that worried some powerful bankers: allowing banking at the post office, for example, and having the Federal Reserve guarantee all Americans a bank account. [Emphasis added]

But in private calls with Wall Street leaders, the Biden campaign made it clear those proposals would not be central to Biden’s agenda. [Emphasis added]

“They basically said, ‘Listen, this is just an exercise to keep the Warren people happy, and don’t read too much into it,’” said one investment banker, referring to liberal supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The banker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks, said that message was conveyed on multiple calls. [Emphasis added]

In a statement to the Post, Biden’s campaign downplayed the influence of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — left populists on trade and economic policy — on the former vice president’s agenda.

“The Biden-Sanders task forces made recommendations to Vice President Biden and to the [Democrat National Committee] platform drafting committee,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo said. “This anonymous source appears to be confused and uninformed about this very basic distinction.”

The report comes as Biden told AFL-CIO members on Labor Day that he will be the “strongest labor president” union workers “have ever had.”

“You can be sure you’ll be hearing that word, ‘union,’ plenty of times when I’m in the White House,” Biden pitched. “The words of a president matter. Union. We’re going to empower workers and empower unions.”

In the Democrat presidential primary, Biden told a group of rich Manhattan donors at a private fundraiser that “nothing would change” for them or their wealthy lifestyles if elected.

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” Biden said at the June 2019 fundraiser.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished,” Biden said. “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

Like failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Biden has enjoyed a cozy relationship with Wall Street executives, along with his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

Most recently, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Biden’s Billionaires

 By Steve McCann

Many years ago, while participating in a voter registration drive, I came upon a grizzled and disheveled old man sitting in the overgrown and weed-infested yard of his paint-starved house calming smoking his pipe.  Despite his gruff demeanor, Ully (Ulysses) was very pleasant and loquacious as we talked for over an hour on topics ranging from the weather to the innate foibles of mankind.  It turned out that he had to leave school after the fourth grade in order to work in the fields to help support his family and had toiled in a variety of menial and labor-intensive jobs ever since.  Yet, he had a deep and thorough insight into human nature.  Among his comments about the rich and ostensibly well-educated was: “All the money in the world cain’t buy a fool a lick of common sense.”

I was reminded of that observation after reading an article describing the 131 billionaires who are pouring millions into the coffers of the Democrat party and Joe Biden’s campaign in their mindless obsession to defeat President Trump in November.  Among the prominent names are Jeff Skoll, a founder of eBay who has contributed $4.5 million; Laurene Powell Jobs of Apple and owner of The Atlantic magazine has donated $1.2 million,  and Josh Bekenstein, Chairman of Bain Capital (co-founded by Mitt Romney), $5 million.  

Far more Wall Street financers have also jumped on the Biden/Democrat party bandwagon than are supporting Donald Trump, whose policies have overwhelmingly revived the economy after the stagnation of the Obama-Biden years. The tech billionaires, not content to simply cough up untold millions in direct political contributions, are also funding massive voter drives, promoting mail-in balloting, creating divisive partisan news sites, aiding and designing the Democrat party’s digital campaigns and unabashedly censoring the social media accounts of the Trump campaign and innumerable conservatives. 

The political party they are gleefully underwriting in order to oust Trump is no longer the party of the middle and working class (which is now one and the same) but a two-tier assemblage in which the prey is sleeping with the predator.  The witless wealthy and socially aware are in bed with the avowed socialists and militant Marxists.  What is holding this marriage of convenience together is a mutual hatred of Donald Trump and the undoable promises made by Joe Biden and the Democrat party hierarchy.

In a 2019 meeting with 100 super-wealthy potential donors, Biden assured the gathering that he would not demonize the rich and would only increase their taxes slightly while ensuring that their standard of living would not be affected by any of his policies.  He also stated: “I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 Billionaires are the reason why we are in trouble”.  Further, he unabashedly emphasized that the wealthy are not the reason for income inequality and “If I win this nomination.  I won’t let you down.  I promise you.”  

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

When the time came to deal with the Marxist/socialist wing of the Democrat party’s anti-Trump coalition, policy commitments, many diametrically opposite of what was promised the wealthy donors, were also guaranteed with a non-verbal pledge of we won’t let you down.

The first step was a de facto party platform.  The 110-page Biden-Sanders Manifesto which includes, among other commitments, a massive job killing $2+ trillion climate agenda to phase out fossil fuel usage within 15 years, the elimination of cash bail, redirecting (i.e. cutting) funding for the police, dismantling all border protections, legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants and massively raising corporate and individual tax rates on the wealthy.  This manifesto is a socialist screed that would destroy the middle class and permanently neuter the economy and nation. 

An effusive Bernie Sanders proclaimed to the world that Biden and the Democrats have embraced his socialist agenda and that Biden would be the most progressive president since FDR.  Sanders exposed not only the behind the scenes reality of today’s Democrat party but Biden’s figurehead role.

Further confirmation of the radicalization of the Party came about unexpectedly as the militant Marxist faction of the Sanders coalition forced the issue.  Impatient and unwilling to wait until after the 3rd of November, Antifa and Black Lives Matter used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to take to the streets and begin their long-hoped for revolution.  They claimed that rioting, looting, committing arson and attacking law enforcement was a necessity as this was a systemically racist country.  Yet, they openly demanded immediate changes rooted in their radical Marxist ideology of class warfare not so-called systemic racism.  As two of their preferred chants and graffiti slogans “eat the rich” and “abolish capitalism now” confirms. 

Biden, the Democrat party hierarchy as well as virtually all Democrat elected officials refused to address the violence and those responsible.  Thus, they tacitly approved of the lawlessness and by doing so flashed a green light to continue the riots.  When forced to acknowledge the reality on the streets of the nation’s cities, they instead blamed Trump, the police, white supremacists and even the Russians.  Due to their spinelessness, the armies of anarchy and revolution Biden and the Democrats unleashed will never be defeated or mollified by them.   

Considering the vast dichotomy in the litany of promises made and actions taken, it is inevitable that either the moneyed elite or the mob of passionate true believers will be betrayed.  There is no middle ground.  Who will prevail? 

Will it be the elites whose only weapon is money and fleeting political influence or the passionate mob whose weapons are unconstrained violence and intimidation?  Will it be those who believe a revolution could never happen here or those who are currently inciting revolution with the implicit blessing of a major political party?  Will it be those who believe that Biden and the Democrats, if elected, will be able to forcefully deal with the insurgents or the insurgents who now know that riots and extortion causes Democrat politicians to cower in the corner?

Beginning with the French Revolution and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, history has recorded that passionate mobs always prevail when dealing with a feckless ruling class or party.  And the first casualties have inevitably been the wealthy elites.

I can envision sitting with my old friend, Ully, and asking him if he thought the wealthy elites, indiscriminately tossing money at the Democrats for the sole purpose of defeating President Trump, understood the pitfalls involved.  He would lean back, slowly exhale a puff of smoke from his well-worn pipe and with uncontrollable anger in his eyes would say: “Nope.  Those damn fools ain’t got a lick of common sense.”

Richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as bottom 165 million

The Federal Reserve released data this week on US household wealth that documents the acceleration of wealth inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the second quarter of 2020, the bottom 50 percent of households—some 165 million people—held $2.08 trillion, or $12,600 per person, while the richest one percent of the population controlled $34.2 trillion, i.e., over $10.4 million per person. In percentile terms, the top one percent of the population held 30.5 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 50 percent controlled only 1.9 percent.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The divide in wealth appears even more gigantic when one looks at the top 10 percent of the population as a whole. Combined, the top one percent and next nine percent held 69 percent of the nation’s wealth at the end of the second quarter of 2020, a total of $77.32 trillion.

Between the first and second quarter of 2020, the top one percent of the population increased its share of the country’s wealth from 30 percent to 30.5 percent. The biggest losers were those in the 50 to 90 percentile range of wealth holders, who saw their overall share shrink from 29.7 percent to 29.1 percent. The 90 to 99 percentile and the bottom half remained largely unchanged.

While these changes may appear slight, they actually represent a substantial shift in a short period of time. The top one percent of the population substantially increased its share of the country’s wealth as the Fed effectively printed over $3 trillion and injected it into the financial markets. Better-off sections of workers, who, unlike the bottom half of the working class, have some level of savings, retirement funds or other assets, saw their wealth share decline, as they were forced to draw on savings amidst the global downturn.

One explanation for this sharpening division between, roughly, the top 10 percent of the population and the bottom 90 percent of the population is the disproportionate ownership of stocks and mutual funds. The top one percent of the population owns 52.4 percent of all corporate equities (stocks) and mutual funds, the next nine percent owns 35.8 percent.

Combined, 88.2 percent of the US economy, as represented in corporate equities and mutual funds, is owned by just 10 percent of the population.

While the bottom half of the population has for the last several decades held only one percent of the nation’s stocks, better-off sections of the working class, the 50th to 90th percentiles, held 21.4 percent of this wealth in the early 2000s. However, today this share has fallen to just 11.2 percent. In other words, better-off sections of the working class, less connected to the financial markets, have seen their fortunes move in an opposite direction to those in the top 10 percent of the population.

Another interesting feature of the Fed data is its breakdown by age group. The Millennial group—those born between 1981 and 1996—is today the largest share of the American workforce, accounting for 72 million workers. However, Millennials own just 4.6 percent of US wealth.

In contrast, the data shows that in 1989, when the typical member of the Baby Boomer generation was 34, that generation controlled about 21 percent of wealth.

This contrast between the wealth of Millennials and that of Boomers at similar times in their life cycles reflects the incredible difficulty that young people today face in landing a decent-paying job, paying for college and paying for health care, let alone taking out a mortgage, raising a family and saving for retirement.

The Fed data comes on top of several other recent reports and announcements about social inequality, including:

· A UBS report showing that the world’s billionaires have increased their wealth by over $1.3 trillion, more than 10 percent, in just three years.

· An announcement by the World Bank that the fallout from COVID-19 will push as many as 150 million people into what it classifies as extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 per day) by 2021. This is the first time the number of people in extreme poverty has increased since 1998.

· Wall Street Journal report that, using Labor Department data, demonstrated the divergence of fortunes for educated and noneducated workers amid the pandemic. The Journal found that, while those with college degrees have nearly recovered from COVID-19 job losses (which were smaller), high school dropouts still have 18 percent fewer jobs.

· A RAND report that found the bottom 90 percent of Americans would be making 67 percent more without last four decades of deepening inequality.

The ever-growing concentration of wealth at the top of the population weighs like a malignant tumor over society. No social problem, whether it be inequality, global warming, education, health care, retirement or the pandemic, can be solved without mobilizing these vast fortunes at the top and placing them under the democratic control of the broad majority of the population.

The process of extreme class restructuring, and the decimation of the ranks of the better-off, “middle-class” workers depicted in the Fed data, has been underway for at least 40 years. Under Democratic no less than Republican leadership, president after president, Congress after Congress, policies have been carried out that inflated the wealth of the ultra-rich while degrading the conditions of the working class.

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now, a similar but even more drastic social restructuring is underway in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions have been thrown into long-term joblessness and poverty, while $3 trillion have been injected into the financial markets and hundreds of billions of dollars given out to major corporations under the bipartisan CARES Act.

The needs of the working class—the broad majority of the population—stand in direct conflict with the interests of the parasitic financial elite. The major banks and corporations, which control nearly every aspect of global life today, must be placed under the democratic ownership and supervision of the working class so that that the needs of the population can be met.

Joel Kotkin: U.S. Elites Want Mussolini-Style Corporatism

Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (1883 - 1945) giving a speech. (Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images)
Fox Photos/Getty Images
3:16

U.S. economic elites are reincarnating “Mussolini-style fascism,” says author Joel Kotkin, who has spotlighted the political and economic dominance of the Silicon Valley elites.

Socialist Benito Mussolini allied with corporations to take control of Italy in 1922 after the trauma of World War I. He replaced its raucous, chaotic democracy with his idea of “corporatism,” where the society and economy would supposedly be centrally planned by rational interest groups of business leaders, unions, and farmers.

In the United States, corporations are now in the driving seat, Kotkin wrote July 7 for Unherd.com:

Mussolini’s idea of an economy controlled from above, with generous benefits but dominated by large business interests, is gradually supplanting the old liberal capitalist model. In the West, for example, the “Great Reset,” introduced by the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, proposes an expanded welfare state and an economy that transcends the market for the greater goal of serving racial and gender “equity”, as well as saving the planet.

Mussolini’s corporatist government was initially popular among some U.S. elites in the 1930s. But it was disavowed as “right-wing Fascism” when Mussolini and his National Fascist Party allied with Adolf Hitler’s anti-semitic, Aryan-only socialist party, and then joined Hitler’s racial war against Russians.

Mussolini’s party got its name from his use of the Roman-era “fasces” symbol of authority.

The Democrats, and their myriad corporate-funded activists, are signing up for this bleak future, Kotkin writes:

This parallels with the alarming transformation of the US Democratic Party, the putative “party of the people” , now increasingly a subsidiary of the corporate elite. Among financial firms, communications companies and lawyers, [Joe] Biden outraised [Donald] Trump by five-to-one or more. Today’s oligarchs are particularly keen on the progressive non-profit sector, which provides important support for their political and social advocacy — a means for them to make politically correct statements about climate change, gender and race, while still obtaining enormous profit margins and unprecedented wealth.

Kotkin works at Chapman University and is the executive director of the Urban Reform Institute.

There is little support among Americans for the centralization of wealth and power sought by the emerging oligarchy of major corporations and their activist allies, Kotkin argues:

The tired capitalism of our corporate elite — who seem to have given up on broad-based economic growth — seems increasingly detached from the interests and aspirations of their own citizens’ needs … But building a coalition against the new fascism requires avoiding destructive nativism and instead focusing on how to restore competition and protect consumers from the overweening power, and vast wealth of the corporate elites.

Breitbart News has closely tracked the increasing consolidation of political power, wealth, and media control in the United States.

Tech and Media Moguls Arrive at Sun Valley for ‘Billionaire Summer Camp’

SUN VALLEY, IDAHO - JULY 05: Private Jets park alongside grazing cows at Friedman Memorial Airport ahead of the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference, July 5, 2021 in Sun Valley, Idaho. After a year hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic the world's most wealthy and powerful businesspeople from the …
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
2:26

An elite annual invite-only conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, organized by the investment bank Allen & Company is taking place this week, with the guest list including billionaires and powerbrokers from the Big Tech Masters of the Universe and the media such as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Disney CEO Bob Iger, CNN host Anderson Cooper, Patriots Owner Robert Kraft, and possibly Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The estimated wealth of attendees tops $588 billion this year.

The Daily Mail reports that key tech and media industry players are arriving in Sun Valley in Idaho this week for the start of the annual “billionaire summer camp” hosted by the investment bank Allen & company. It is estimated that the wealth of attendees is in excess of $588 billion.

The five-day conference runs from July 6 to 10 and is held at the edge of Idaho’s Sawtooth National Forest in a small town of 1,500 people. Guests in attendance at the event include New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg; Netflix Co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos; CBS News’ Gayle King; CNN’s Anderson Cooper; Nike CEO John Donahoe; former Disney CEO Michael Eisner; Shari Redstone chairwoman of ViacomCBS, and Stacey Bendet CEO of fashion company Alice + Olivia.

A plane belonging to Jeff Bezos arrived at the local airport in nearby Hailey, but the Amazon co-founder who recently stepped down as company CEO is yet to make a pubic appearance at the event.

Attendees at the last conference in 2019 included Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg; 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki; Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, who is the CEO of Fox Corporation; PayPal CEO Dan Schulman; Instagram COO Marne Levine; McDonald’s chief Steve Easterbrook and billionaire media executive Shari Redstone.

Read more at the Daily Mail here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com 

Tech and Media Moguls Arrive at Sun Valley for ‘Billionaire Summer Camp’

Sheryl Sandberg at Sun Valley
Kevin Dietsch /Getty
2:26

An elite annual invite-only conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, organized by the investment bank Allen & Company is taking place this week, with the guest list including billionaires and powerbrokers from the Big Tech Masters of the Universe and the media such as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Disney CEO Bob Iger, CNN host Anderson Cooper, Patriots Owner Robert Kraft, and possibly Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The estimated wealth of attendees tops $588 billion this year.

The Daily Mail reports that key tech and media industry players are arriving in Sun Valley in Idaho this week for the start of the annual “billionaire summer camp” hosted by the investment bank Allen & company. It is estimated that the wealth of attendees is in excess of $588 billion.

The five-day conference runs from July 6 to 10 and is held at the edge of Idaho’s Sawtooth National Forest in a small town of 1,500 people. Guests in attendance at the event include New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft; Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg; Netflix Co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos; CBS News’ Gayle King; CNN’s Anderson Cooper; Nike CEO John Donahoe; former Disney CEO Michael Eisner; Shari Redstone chairwoman of ViacomCBS, and Stacey Bendet CEO of fashion company Alice + Olivia.

A plane belonging to Jeff Bezos arrived at the local airport in nearby Hailey, but the Amazon co-founder who recently stepped down as company CEO is yet to make a pubic appearance at the event.

Attendees at the last conference in 2019 included Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg; 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki; Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, who is the CEO of Fox Corporation; PayPal CEO Dan Schulman; Instagram COO Marne Levine; McDonald’s chief Steve Easterbrook and billionaire media executive Shari Redstone.

Read more at the Daily Mail here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com

The "racial wealth gap" narrative obscures reality of class divide in the US

Over the last several years, news of a “racial wealth gap” has flooded America’s airwaves and print media. According to those pushing the concept, white Americans have a great deal more in all respects than black Americans, and that, therefore, race-based remedies tailored to upper income blacks—such as reparations, set-asides, and affirmative action—must be deployed.

New apartment buildings are under construction overlooking Central Park, Tuesday, April 17, 2018, in New York. (AP Photo - Mark Lennihan)

These racialist politics share one common feature: They leave untouched the actual source of social inequality for workers of all races—capitalism.

The concept of the racial wealth gap, and the attendant idea of “white privilege,” have been promoted by academics for some time, but it is only recently that they have appeared broadly in the news media. An analysis of newspaper articles on the archive Newspapers.com shows that the terms “racial wealth gap,” “racial wealth divide,” “racial inequality,” and “white privilege” appeared 4,689 times in the 1990s and then more than tripled in the 2010s, reaching 15,758 mentions. Over the 2020s—that is, just the last year-and-a-half—there have already been 10,658 references to these terms. By contrast, during the 1960s, the height of the civil rights era, they only appeared 4,560 times.

The deluge coincides with a massive growth in overall wealth and income inequality in the US and globally. The wealthiest 10 percent of US households owns 34.5 times more than the bottom 50 percent, and over the course of just 2020 they increased their fortune by more than $18.8 trillion—about $1.53 million per household, with far higher going to the super-rich. As the richest of all races have seen their fortunes climb into the stratosphere and their counterparts in the bottom 90 percent have seen theirs stagnate and crumble, an obsessive focus on race has emerged. It is being pumped into the veins of American society. The purpose is to transform a looming class war into a race war.

The argument that the racial wealth gap is the most salient feature of American society today is, to be blunt, a fraud. It is based on the tendentious selection and presentation of data. There is nothing about it that is remotely progressive or left-wing, much less Marxist, as those on the political right claim.

Before delving into the data, it is essential to underscore one point. Race is neither biologically real nor socially immutable. But when it comes to the creation of categories of people for the purposes of social analysis, it is assumed that it is. The data spin around the idea that there is some sort of clear distinction as to what constitutes a “white household” and what constitutes a “black household,” even though people have always formed, and increasingly continue to form, family bonds across these lines.

Each “racial group” in fact subsumes within it populations with extremely different histories. So-called “white households” may include the children of Appalachian coal miners, Soviet-Jewish immigrants from the Caucasus, Persians from modern-day Iran, Spaniards from the Mediterranean, Arabs from Morocco, the great-great-great grandchildren of American slaves, dispossessed Palestinians, and so on. So-called “black households” might include some of the same groups, as well as Caribbean islanders, individuals from the Indian subcontinent, French immigrants of west African descent, etc.

But census forms, surveys, and medical histories require Americans to adopt some sort of racial identity. The resulting data is then utilized to argue that race is the overwhelming determinant of social reality—regardless of whether it is personally meaningful or significant in explaining any given individual’s place in the social structure. All other factors—such as language, culture, citizenship status, time of arrival in the United States, role in the labor force, and, above all, class—are regarded as small change in the face of the concept of race.

The data

When investigating the racial wealth gap, mean and median wealth for different racial groups is commonly cited to demonstrate the existence of universal “white privilege.” Analysts and commentators draw on different data sources, generally surveys, the census, and tax records, of which the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is frequently cited.

In 2020, the Federal Reserve published the results of its 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). The data were picked up by the media, with news articles on the findings appearing in many press outlets. According to the SCF:

In 2019, the typical white family had $188,200 in wealth and the typical Black family had $24,100… [T]he typical White family has $50,600 in equities they could tap into in an emergency compared to just $14,400 for the typical Black family and $14,900 for the typical Hispanic family… The typical White families’ home value is $230,000 and the typical other families’ home value is $310,000. The typical Black and Hispanic families’ home values are lower, at $150,000 and $200,000, respectively…. While the typical Black or Hispanic family has $2,000 or less in liquid savings, the typical White family has more than four times that amount [emphases added].

In the Federal Reserve’s ten pages of analysis of the SCF, “typical” appears 25 times. The use of the word gives the impression that the great majority of whites possess eight times more, own homes worth $80,000 more, and have quadruple the financial reserves of their black counterparts. This implies that white families are overwhelmingly comfortable and secure, and that they have tidy bundles in the bank.

But this is an intentionally distorted portrait of social reality. In order to arrive at it, analysts have to do several things. First, they attach to mathematical measures a social meaning that they lack. Second, they remain silent about the scale of inequality that exists within racial groups, and within society as a whole, both of which dwarf by many times the racial wealth gap. Third, they focus on strata of whites and blacks and make no mention of the absolute numbers of people that these percentages encompass. Because the white population is five to six times the size of the black population, even if lower percentages of white households are poor, in aggregate tens of millions of whites—actually more—share the same level of social deprivation as the most oppressed minorities.

Returning to the question of the median wealth of white versus black households, it is essential to realize that the description of this value as reflective of the wealth of the “typical” or “average” white family in the US is deceptive. A median is a halfway point in a data set. When dealing with wealth and income, in which there is a massive chasm between the best and least-well off, a median is often a better measure of the overall situation than a mean (commonly referred to as an “average”), which is pulled upward by the super wealthy and extremely high-income earners. However, under situations in which there are very high levels of inequality, a median also hides more than it reveals.

Using the median, SCF data found that half of all white families own more, and half own less, than $188,200, compared to $24,100 for the fiftieth percentile division among black families. But what is lost by focusing on the median for the white population as a whole is the fact that among those who own less than the median, tens of millions of families own vastly less. Massive numbers of white households are not experiencing anything like this allegedly “typical” reality.

According to SCF data, the bottom 20 percent of white households—18.6 million (using an average household size of 2.53, about 47 million people)—own virtually nothing or are so indebted that the total value of their wealth is negative. Their reality is shared by the 30 percent of black households—4.5 million (approximately 11 million people)—and 20 percent of Latino households—3.4 million (an estimated 8.6 million people). Using different data, economist Gabriel Zucman calculated in 2014 that as much as 50 percent of the total US population—nearly 160 million people at the time—has zero or negative wealth.

In other words, for the tens of millions of households that have zero or negative wealth, the “racial wealth gap” is a meaningless concept. It does not exist. Regardless of skin color, no one has anything. A more “equitable” distribution of wealth across the lower strata of racial groups would not pay a single bill for a poor black family, for the simple reason that you cannot divide something that does not exist.

The United States is a sea of multi-racial destitution. According to the analysis of SCF data by Matt Bruenig with the People’s Policy Project, the poorest 10 percent of the US population is about 54 percent white, 27 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent some other group. The next most impoverished layer is 42 percent white, 32 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent other. And the third one up from the bottom is 53 percent white, 20 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic and 7 percent other. When one gets to the top three deciles of wealth holders, the racial composition begins to strongly favor whites. The largest imbalance exists in the highest tier. The racial wealth gap is primarily meaningful for elite African Americans, who are frustrated at being underrepresented where the vast majority of net worth is concentrated.

Looking at the middle of the wealth pyramid, white households whose net worth puts them in the fifth decile (the 40th to 50th percentiles) control just 1.5 percent of the total $93.82 trillion possessed by white households, according to the Federal Reserve. Imagining this tiny share could be spread evenly among all families in that decile group, it would amount to about $151,200 per household. This is $30,000 shy of the median wealth of white households as a whole, which is $188,200, and about 16 percent of the mean wealth of all white households, which stands at around $950,000.

White Household Wealth Share by White Wealth Decile (2019)

The fifth decile of black households possess only 0.9 percent of the approximately $4.46 trillion held by all households in this racial categorization. If we divided this share up evenly among fifth-decile black households, we find an average wealth for black families of about $26,760. White households in the parallel bracket, in other words, own about 5.5 times more than black households because African Americans are overrepresented among the poor. According to the racial wealth gap proponents, having $151,200—which as Federal Reserve data show will be largely comprised of a partially paid off mortgage and a small retirement fund—is an incredible level of “white privilege.”

Black Household Wealth Share by Black Wealth Decile (2019)

However, when we consider the privilege that accrues to the richest households of all races, the real stratification in society becomes evident. Today, the top 10 percent of white households control 74.4 percent of all the wealth for that group. The situation for rich blacks is similar. They have 70.6 percent of everything held by their racial category as a whole. Imagining that this is divided equally among the white households in the top 10 percent, each would have a net worth of $7.5 million. The equivalent number for black households is “only” $2.1 million.

Inequality is greater among black households than among white households. The average wealth of top white households and the fifth decile of white households—technically families that fall somewhere near the middle of the wealth pyramid—differs by a factor of nearly 50. Comparing black households at the top to blacks in the fifth decile yields a difference of 78.5 times.

Looking at the data cross-racially, we also see big differences between the wealthiest black families and middle class white families, with the former being 14 times richer than the latter. This gives the lie to the claim that “all whites” enjoy “skin privilege.”

Fifth vs. Top Decile Average Wealth of Black and White Households (2019)The gap between the wealthiest white and wealthiest black households is 3.5 times, tiny compared to what exists more broadly in society. But because the volume of assets at stake at the upper echelons is so large, such a discrepancy is intolerable to the richest African Americans.

Since the first quarter of 2020, total white household wealth has grown by $21.3 trillion and total black household wealth has increased by $1.12 trillion. Again, the racial wealth gap proponents point to the fact that white household wealth grew by far more than that of black households. But as the increase for both groups was driven by an extraordinary run-up in stocks, of which the bottom 50 percent of the population owns just 0.7 percent compared to 87.2 percent for the top 10 percent, virtually all of this wealth has been captured by the rich of all races. Of the entirety of the wealth generated over the course of 2020, the bottom half of the population shared in just 2.8 percent.

In addition to net worth, it is often emphasized that “typical” white families have significantly more back-up reserves than blacks and Hispanics. Again, an image of relative security is imposed on white families. But this betrays, on the part of the government analysts, journalists, and academics with six-figure salaries, a complete lack of understanding of how what most people have really stacks up against the economic burdens they face.

The SCF data show that the average black, Latino, and white families have somewhere between $14,000 and $50,000 of equities (including stocks, mutual funds, and retirement accounts) that theoretically could be transformed into cash in the event of an emergency. In addition, the “typical” white family has $8,000 in liquid savings compared to the “typical” black family with just $2,000. That is, white households, it would appear, have about four times as much.

But these numbers simply do not apply to the bottom 20 to 30 percent of any racial group, who own nothing. And four times a pittance is still a pittance. While some white households are in a better position to hold out against financial blows for a longer period of time, in the event of a job loss, unexpected medical bill, major home repair, or similar disaster, tens of thousands of dollars can swiftly evaporate.

A 2018 report, based on a survey also conducted by the Federal Reserve, found that four out of ten adults said they could not cope with an unexpected expense of just $400—the equivalent of a set of tires blown out on a freeway or a flu test not covered by insurance—without taking out a loan, overdrawing on their bank account, borrowing from a friend or family member, or simply not paying the bill. Among this group are tens of millions of people from all races.

This data took on a human face during the COVID-19 crisis in the form of miles-long lines of cars that appeared at food banks. Those queues were made up of families of all backgrounds who, it seems, somehow did not get the memo about their net worth, equity, and liquid savings calculated by the “racial wealth gap” specialists.

It must be stressed that the way the Federal Reserve measures net worth minimizes the wealth of the very richest, who are very adept at hiding their fortunes, while overstating the wealth in the working class. In its calculation of household net worth, the Federal Reserve includes unfunded pensions, for instance, of which 99 percent are promised to government employees. When the 2019 SCF data were released, analysts highlighted the fact that more white households tend to have pensions and retirement accounts than black households. However, as Gabriel Zucman and Emanuel Saez noted in September 2020, unfunded pensions are not backed by anything. They actually have no real value.

Conclusion

The overrepresentation of black families in the poorest strata of society is the outcome of history—namely, specific forms of capitalist exploitation for which racism provided ideological justification, including slavery and sharecropping. Historically, African Americans have suffered from horrendous forms of prejudice and discrimination, with many pushed into the most oppressed layers of the population as a consequence. But the origins of racism do not lie in the “DNA” of white people, as is claimed by the N ew Y ork Times 1619 Project, but in capitalism. The capitalist class foments divisions among workers in order to exercise its rule. All those who insist that the racial wealth gap, not the class gap, is most important division in society do the same.

The dire conditions facing masses of black workers today arise out of a sweeping assault on living standards that started in the 1960s and 1970s and was overseen by both Democrats and Republicans, black and white. The advances of the civil rights movement and mass entry of African Americans into industrial work in northern cities during the post-World War II era had just begun to lift sections of that population out of the extreme poverty and oppression of the Jim Crow era. For a short time, some black workers began to share in the rising living standards of the American working class, experiencing modest gains that were won through hard-fought class battles. But the weakening global position of American capitalism led the US ruling class to determine that such concessions were intolerable. While the South, where many blacks lived, remained poor, deindustrialization hammered northern city after city, such as Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Cleveland, which were home to millions of blacks. African American workers shared the fate of their class as a whole: job losses, wage cuts, collapsing property values, the destruction of whole communities.

But a narrow layer, including a black elite, shared in the spoils of the wreckage. In the 1970s, as the assault on the working class intensified, affirmative action, “black capitalism,” and “black power” in the form of black mayors, police chiefs, and school boards were part of the thin gruel dished out to the residents of America’s hollowed-out cities. They did nothing for the overwhelming majority of the African American population, but a great deal for a small few. The obsession with the racial wealth gap is intended to obscure these class realities, hide this history, and drown class anger in a toxic swamp of racial hatred.

Social scientists expend incredible effort to suppress the reality of social class. Unlike race, class is not a scientifically false category. It arises objectively from control over the means of production. There are those who own great wealth and those who labor to produce it. But in contemporary American sociology, class is, at best, of tertiary interest, important to the allegedly more decisive categories of “race, gender, and sexuality” only as it “intersects” with them. More often it is treated as essentially meaningless.

Trotsky once explained that behind every social categorization is a political prognosis. Those that insist that universal “white privilege” is the cornerstone of modern American reality demand more racial “equity.” In doing so, they reveal more than they intend to. In the original meaning of the term, to have “equity” means to own stocks. Indeed, this is what they are after. It is to be achieved by impoverishing a section of the white population, ensuring that poor blacks stay poor, and growing the share of total wealth that goes to the African American population at the top. Class inequality is not only to remain untouched, it is to be defended, deepened, and expanded.

How the Federal Reserve Is Increasing Wealth Inequality

The Fed’s low-interest-rate policies have stabilized the economy and turbocharged the stock market. But those who don’t own lots of stocks haven’t benefited anywhere near as much as those who do.


by Allan Sloan and Cezary PodkulApril 27, 6 a.m. EDT

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the Federal Reserve has gotten plenty of kudos for moves that have helped stabilize the economy, kept house prices from tanking and supported the stock market. But those successes have obscured another effect: the inadvertent impact the Fed’s ultra-low interest rates and bond-buying sprees are having on economic inequality.

Longstanding inequality in the U.S. has been exacerbated by the Fed’s role in touching off a multitrillion-dollar boom in stock markets — and stock ownership is heavily skewed toward the wealthiest Americans.

In contrast, soaring stock prices don’t help people like Wina Tan. Tan, 59, is one of the millions of Americans nearing retirement age whose greatest source of wealth isn’t stocks or equity in a home. Rather, it’s the Social Security checks she expects to start getting once she retires.

Tan, precariously perched on the lowest rung of America’s working class, earns about $25,000 a year as a job coach for adults with special needs near Irvine, California. She’s a single mom and grandmother and can afford food, rent and healthcare only with the help of federal safety net programs.

Her savings account totals around $11,000, most of it from recent tax refunds and stimulus payments. She’s reluctant to risk that money in stocks, so the bull market will probably continue to charge past her. Meanwhile, thanks to the Fed’s near-zero interest rates, the best rate her credit union could offer was 0.5% for a long-term certificate of deposit. That would mean earning less than $60 a year on her savings while tying the money up for five years.

Tan’s situation is far from unique. Social Security is the top source of wealth for most lower-income households with workers nearing retirement, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, an economist at The New School in New York City who specializes in retirement. If the guaranteed income stream of Social Security is treated as an asset, she estimates it amounts to 58% of the net worth for near-retirees in the bottom half of the U.S. wealth distribution. Other retirement savings represent only about 11% of their net worth, and stocks are just 1%. (Home equity accounts for most of the remainder.)

Large swaths of Americans like Tan have essentially missed out on any direct wealth increase from the market’s near doubling since its bottom 13 months ago. Rather, the major beneficiaries have been the wealthiest 10% of Americans, who owned 89% of stocks and mutual fund shares held by U.S. households as of year-end, according to Fed statistics. More than half of that — 53% — is owned by the top 1%.

The Fed’s policies have helped generate jobs and reduce unemployment, which was their goal. In the process, however, the Fed has accelerated the decades-long increase in economic inequality by helping increase the wealth of people at the top far more than it has increased the wealth of working-class Americans.

“High-wealth households do much better in a low-rate environment than lower-wealth households do,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said. “The low-interest environment increases inequality by increasing the wealth of people who are well off.” Zandi noted, however, that less well-off people don’t lose money because of the low rates; they simply don’t do as well as wealthier people.

Home prices have also benefited from the Fed’s easy money policies, and home ownership is much more evenly distributed than stock ownership is. The wealthiest 10% own only 45% of the real estate held by American households, according to the Fed. The remainder is owned largely by middle-class households, for whom home equity is often their biggest source of wealth.

But stock holdings are where the truly massive gains have come. It’s also where there was a big scare last year before the Fed and the CARES Act came to the rescue. COVID-19 sent unemployment soaring and stocks plummeting, as the market fell 35% from Feb. 19 to March 23, 2020.

The market’s rise since then makes the increase in homeowners’ equity look negligible. From last year’s market bottom through mid-April of this year, stocks gained about $22.4 trillion in value, as measured by the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index.

To the Stockholders Go the Spoils

The value of U.S. stocks was growing faster than home equity before last year, but the gap exploded after actions by the Federal Reserve stabilized the markets.

Source: Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (U.S. stock market value) and Federal Reserve (U.S. home equity) through 12/31/20.

In contrast, the nation’s total home equity — the value of houses less the debt on them — rose only about $1.3 trillion from the end of last year’s first quarter (eight days after the market low) through Dec. 31, according to the Fed. Even if you tweak the housing numbers to reflect this year’s gains, or measure the stock market’s gain from before the February drop, the disparity between stocks and home equity is huge.

“Inequality is a cumulative process,” said Karen Petrou, author of “The Engine of Inequality: The Fed and the Future of Wealth in America” and managing partner of the Washington-based consulting firm Federal Financial Analytics. “The richer you are, the richer you get, and the poorer you are, the poorer you get, unless something puts that engine in reverse,” she said. “That engine is driven not by fate or by untouchable phenomena such as demographics but most importantly by policy decisions.”

Under President Joe Biden, the federal government is trying to both create jobs and funnel lots of money to people like Tan with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan stimulus package. Indeed, Tan is grateful for the $4,200 in stimulus funds she recently received. “This country has really, really blessed me a lot,” said Tan, a naturalized citizen who emigrated from Indonesia in 1984.

The Biden administration is also pushing for a $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill. But even without a penny yet having been spent on that, the federal government is running up record budget deficits, with more to come.

A considerable part of current and future deficits will be indirectly financed by the Fed, which has been increasing its holdings of Treasury IOUs and mortgage-backed securities by at least $120 billion a month, and has directed its trading desk to increase purchases “as needed” to maintain smooth functioning in the financial markets.

During Donald Trump’s four years as president, the Fed added $2.25 trillion to its holdings of Treasury IOUs, which helped cover the $7.8 trillion of debt the Treasury issued to finance budget deficits during the Trump years. It’s likely the central bank will be the biggest source of finance for Biden’s deficits, just as it was for Trump’s.

Why does that matter? Because when the Fed buys securities, it does so with money that it creates out of thin air. Pumping more money into the financial system increases the money supply, and some of that cash inevitably ends up making its way into the stock market, boosting prices.

Biden is making tax increases a big part of his infrastructure pitch, which in theory would make that legislation less reliant on the Fed. But it doesn’t mean taxes will go up anywhere near as much as he’s proposing. Or that taxes and spending will rise in lockstep. After all, spending is a lot more popular than raising taxes.

Now, let’s step back a bit and see how we got to this point.

During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the Fed initiated “quantitative easing,” a policy under which the central bank buys massive amounts of Treasury IOUs and other securities to inject money into the markets and stimulate the economy. Then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke championed that approach, which complemented aggressive moves by the Treasury and helped keep giant banks and the world financial system from cratering. (Lots of people still lost their homes to foreclosure, another example of how helping the financial system might not help average people. But that story has already been told.)

Quantitative easing helps stimulate the economy by driving down interest rates, which hurts savers. A telling indicator involves money market mutual funds, where savers have traditionally tucked away spare cash in hopes of earning more interest than bank deposits pay. Money market funds used to produce much more income than stock market index funds. But that ratio began to slip in 2008 and has kept on slipping. At the end of 2007, Vanguard’s federal money market fund was yielding 4.46% and dividends on the Admiral shares of its Total Stock Market index fund yielded 1.78%. (A dividend yield is a fund’s annual dividend divided by its share price.) At the end of 2008, the yield was 1.74% for the money market fund and 2.82% for the stock index fund. The current numbers: 0.01% and 1.28%.

Such low rates have forced average savers to either get by with less interest income or put more money into stocks than they would have otherwise done. That added demand has been one of the factors that has helped push stock prices upward.

Economists are beginning to view the interplay of the Fed’s actions and inequality in a new light. Central bankers used to think that “we didn’t have to worry about inequality when we did monetary policy,” Olivier Blanchard, former director of research for the International Monetary Fund, said during a December virtual forum sponsored by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Blanchard said he has since come to believe that monetary policy does impact economic inequality because a change in interest rates has “major, major distribution effects between borrowers and lenders, between asset holders and not.”

Spokespeople for the Fed, the Treasury and the White House declined to discuss the impact of soaring stock prices spurred by ultra-low interest rates on economic inequality. So we looked at what some key people involved in the 2008-09 and 2020 Fed bailouts have said publicly.

Fed chair Jerome Powell hasn’t directly addressed the central bank’s role in exacerbating inequality, though he has expressed sympathy for people left behind during the economic comeback. (“There’s a lot of suffering out there still,” he told “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired on April 11. “And I think it’s important that, just as a country, we stay and help those people.”) In a congressional hearing in February, Powell testified, “We can’t affect wealth inequality. … We can affect indirectly income inequality by doing what we can to support job creation at the lower end of the market.” When pressed to discuss problems of wealth inequality by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), he told her that “those are really fiscal policy issues.”

Bernanke, currently a fellow at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a 2017 Brookings paper that “all else equal, higher stock prices mean greater inequality of wealth.” But he maintained that “whatever effects monetary policy has on inequality are likely to be transient, in contrast to the secular forces of technology and globalization that have contributed to the multi-decade rise in inequality in the United States and some other advanced economies.” Like Powell, Bernanke argued that inequality is the purview of fiscal policymakers (Congress and the White House) rather than the Fed.

Janet Yellen, who was the Fed’s vice chair under Bernanke and is now Treasury secretary, asked in a 2014 speech whether income inequality is “compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history.” But she largely defended ultra-low rates during a Q&A at a 2013 conference of business journalists. Older savers were “suffering from low returns on their CDs,” she said, but “they have children and they have grandchildren” who will benefit from the stronger economy.

However, the economic effects of quantitative easing eventually fade, according to researchers at the Bank for International Settlements, a Switzerland-based institution that acts as a central bank for central banks. The BIS concluded in a 2017 study that quantitative easing had more success boosting stock prices than boosting economic growth. Over time, the economic impact trended toward zero while stocks saw a “significant and persistent positive impact,” the researchers found.

 



Richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as bottom 165 million

The Federal Reserve released data this week on US household wealth that documents the acceleration of wealth inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the second quarter of 2020, the bottom 50 percent of households—some 165 million people—held $2.08 trillion, or $12,600 per person, while the richest one percent of the population controlled $34.2 trillion, i.e., over $10.4 million per person. In percentile terms, the top one percent of the population held 30.5 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 50 percent controlled only 1.9 percent.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The divide in wealth appears even more gigantic when one looks at the top 10 percent of the population as a whole. Combined, the top one percent and next nine percent held 69 percent of the nation’s wealth at the end of the second quarter of 2020, a total of $77.32 trillion.

Between the first and second quarter of 2020, the top one percent of the population increased its share of the country’s wealth from 30 percent to 30.5 percent. The biggest losers were those in the 50 to 90 percentile range of wealth holders, who saw their overall share shrink from 29.7 percent to 29.1 percent. The 90 to 99 percentile and the bottom half remained largely unchanged.

While these changes may appear slight, they actually represent a substantial shift in a short period of time. The top one percent of the population substantially increased its share of the country’s wealth as the Fed effectively printed over $3 trillion and injected it into the financial markets. Better-off sections of workers, who, unlike the bottom half of the working class, have some level of savings, retirement funds or other assets, saw their wealth share decline, as they were forced to draw on savings amidst the global downturn.

One explanation for this sharpening division between, roughly, the top 10 percent of the population and the bottom 90 percent of the population is the disproportionate ownership of stocks and mutual funds. The top one percent of the population owns 52.4 percent of all corporate equities (stocks) and mutual funds, the next nine percent owns 35.8 percent.

Combined, 88.2 percent of the US economy, as represented in corporate equities and mutual funds, is owned by just 10 percent of the population.

While the bottom half of the population has for the last several decades held only one percent of the nation’s stocks, better-off sections of the working class, the 50th to 90th percentiles, held 21.4 percent of this wealth in the early 2000s. However, today this share has fallen to just 11.2 percent. In other words, better-off sections of the working class, less connected to the financial markets, have seen their fortunes move in an opposite direction to those in the top 10 percent of the population.

Another interesting feature of the Fed data is its breakdown by age group. The Millennial group—those born between 1981 and 1996—is today the largest share of the American workforce, accounting for 72 million workers. However, Millennials own just 4.6 percent of US wealth.

In contrast, the data shows that in 1989, when the typical member of the Baby Boomer generation was 34, that generation controlled about 21 percent of wealth.

This contrast between the wealth of Millennials and that of Boomers at similar times in their life cycles reflects the incredible difficulty that young people today face in landing a decent-paying job, paying for college and paying for health care, let alone taking out a mortgage, raising a family and saving for retirement.

The Fed data comes on top of several other recent reports and announcements about social inequality, including:

· A UBS report showing that the world’s billionaires have increased their wealth by over $1.3 trillion, more than 10 percent, in just three years.

· An announcement by the World Bank that the fallout from COVID-19 will push as many as 150 million people into what it classifies as extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 per day) by 2021. This is the first time the number of people in extreme poverty has increased since 1998.

· Wall Street Journal report that, using Labor Department data, demonstrated the divergence of fortunes for educated and noneducated workers amid the pandemic. The Journal found that, while those with college degrees have nearly recovered from COVID-19 job losses (which were smaller), high school dropouts still have 18 percent fewer jobs.

· A RAND report that found the bottom 90 percent of Americans would be making 67 percent more without last four decades of deepening inequality.

The ever-growing concentration of wealth at the top of the population weighs like a malignant tumor over society. No social problem, whether it be inequality, global warming, education, health care, retirement or the pandemic, can be solved without mobilizing these vast fortunes at the top and placing them under the democratic control of the broad majority of the population.

The process of extreme class restructuring, and the decimation of the ranks of the better-off, “middle-class” workers depicted in the Fed data, has been underway for at least 40 years. Under Democratic no less than Republican leadership, president after president, Congress after Congress, policies have been carried out that inflated the wealth of the ultra-rich while degrading the conditions of the working class.

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now, a similar but even more drastic social restructuring is underway in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions have been thrown into long-term joblessness and poverty, while $3 trillion have been injected into the financial markets and hundreds of billions of dollars given out to major corporations under the bipartisan CARES Act.

The needs of the working class—the broad majority of the population—stand in direct conflict with the interests of the parasitic financial elite. The major banks and corporations, which control nearly every aspect of global life today, must be placed under the democratic ownership and supervision of the working class so that that the needs of the population can be met.

As pandemic death toll approaches 200,000,


American oligarchs celebrate their wealth

 

The United States is passing through a historic social, economic and political crisis. The death toll from the coronavirus pandemic is nearing 200,000 and could double by the end of the year. Democratic forms of rule are breaking down, with the Trump administration intensifying its open incitement of fascistic violence. Tens of millions are unemployed and face impoverishment and homelessness. Wildfires are burning out of control on the US West Coast.

It is impossible to understand any of these processes outside of the massive levels of social inequality. The United States is an oligarchy, with a concentration of wealth that is historically unprecedented.

The release of the Forbes 400 billionaire report gives a sense of this reality. The richest 400 individuals (0.00012 percent of the population) now possess more than $3 trillion.

The report declares: “Pandemic be damned: America’s 400 richest are worth a record $3.2 trillion, up $240 billion from a year ago, aided by a stock market that has defied the virus.” The surge in the stock market, underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar CARES Act passed in March, has filled the already overflowing coffers of the super-rich, who now hold claim to the equivalent of 15 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Even the numbers provided by Forbes, based on figures from July 24, are a major underestimation of the current reality. Since that time, the wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, has shot up to more than $200 billion, while the wealth of Tesla CEO Elon Musk has grown to over $100 billion. Bezos’s holdings are three million times greater than the annual income of the typical American household.

The staggering level of inequality reflected in the Forbes list is the central feature of American society, which is defined by the transfer of obscene and ever larger amounts of wealth from the working class into the hands of a tiny financial oligarchy through tax cuts, bailouts, the slashing of wages and the clawing back of pensions and other benefits won by workers in the struggles of the 20th century.

The latest rise in the billionaires’ wealth is not based on any exertion of labor on their part, but on the inflation of the stock market, with trillions of dollars in debt from the Federal Reserve and Congress, which will be paid off the backs of the working class. Everything has been subordinated to ensuring that the Dow and the S&P 500 rise to new heights.

It would take the median American, who earns $33,000 per year, 97 million years to earn as much as is controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Consider what $3.2 trillion could pay for in a year:

· In the 2016-17 school year, $739 billion was spent on public elementary and secondary schools, providing education for 50.8 million students and employing 3.2 million teachers and another 3.2 million school employees.

· The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal government will spend $1.3 trillion on health care programs this year.

· Diabetes cost the US economy $327 billion in 2017, with insulin accounting for $40 billion of this total. The average cost of insulin, critical for the survival of diabetes patients, is up to $6,000 per year and continues to rise.

· According to the US Department of Agriculture, $800 billion was spent by Americans on food and beverages for consumption at home in 2019. The federal government provided $60 billion of this in food stamps for the poorest and most vulnerable to gain access to essential nutrition.

· The 2018 fire season cost $24 billion, driven by record devastation, including the destruction of the city of Paradise, California. All told, extreme weather and climate disasters that year cost $91 billion.

Added up, the wealth of just 400 people could pay for an entire year of public education, health care, nutrition and disaster relief for millions of Americans. The UN recently reported that 132 million more people will go hungry worldwide this year due to the pandemic, driving the number of undernourished close to 1 billion.

Despite the burning need to save millions from malnourishment and starvation, the World Food Program faces a shortage of $5 billion in its effort to deliver food to those in need. The wealth of the 400 richest people in the US is more than 600 times this amount.

Every element of politics is subordinated to the interests of this social layer. It is for this reason that the danger of the pandemic was initially covered up, the bailout of Wall Street was organized and the back-to-work and back-to-school campaigns were implemented.

The systematic looting of society left the country vulnerable to such an outbreak. The subordination of health care to the predatory interests of for-profit health care companies and insurance giants turned nursing homes for the elderly into death chambers and left nurses and doctors without the necessary personal protective equipment and other medical equipment—such as ventilators—needed to treat patients.

The drive of the Trump administration toward fascism and the cultivation of the extreme right cannot be understood except in relation to the class interests of the oligarchy, representing that faction of the ruling class that seeks to smash outright any sign of opposition from the working class. On the other side of the coin, the Democrats represent the faction that seeks to use the politics of race and identity to smother the class struggle, while cultivating sections of the upper-middle class that use the politics of race and gender to fight for access to positions of power and carve out for themselves a bigger share of the wealth of the top 10 percent.

As only the latest example, the racially fixated New York Times published its “Faces of Power” list this week, noting that too many people in “influential positions” are white. What difference would it make if everyone one on the list were black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American? In fact, the report found that a majority of police chiefs in the largest cities are black or Hispanic: Cold comfort for the young black men who are disproportionately killed by police.

The obsession among upper-middle class academics and journalists on race and gender is a distraction from the grotesque levels of wealth that define social relations in American society. This form of politics has nothing to do with the interests of the working class. Instead, it seeks to harness anger over racism and social inequality to advance the interests of a small layer of minorities in the top 10 percent who want a larger piece of the pie hoarded by the top 1 percent.

At every point, science, reason and human solidarity collide with the economic interests of the current rulers of society—the oligarchs, the parasitic masters of finance capital. It is impossible to defend democratic rights or save lives without confronting this issue.

Mass problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly deadly fires fueled by climate change and global hunger require mass solutions. The problems of mankind cannot be resolved without breaking the stranglehold of the capitalist oligarchy in every country. Its wealth must be expropriated and directed toward meeting social needs. The large corporations and banks must be transformed by the working class into democratically controlled institutions oriented to meeting human need and not private profit.

The social inequality that characterizes capitalist society—and all the policies that flow from it—are fueling an immense growth of social anger and working class struggle. These struggles must be organized and united on the basis of a conscious, revolutionary and socialist program.

ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT AMNESTY AND WIDER OPEN BORDERS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT NO CAPS ON IMPORTING CHEAPER FOREIGN WORKER.

 

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

Millionaire Democrat Donor Says Joe Biden Will Be Good for Wall Street

Scott Olson/Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

15 Sep 2020395

2:53

A millionaire Democrat donor, who was once listed as a billionaire by Forbes, says Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden will be good for Wall Street in the long run.

Michael Novogratz, the former Goldman Sachs executive and hedge fund manager, told CNBC in an interview that while a Biden win against President Donald Trump may initially drag the market down, Wall Street will stand to benefit.

“I think Biden’s going to win. I hope Biden wins,” said Novogratz, who now runs an investment firm. “But if he wins, I think the market will go down, at least initially because he’s going to raise capital gains tax … he’s going to raise corporate taxes some and he’s going to raise personal income tax.”

“I think it’s probably better for the markets [if Biden wins] because the chaos Trump brings every week, every day just gets tiring,” Novogratz said.

Novogratz donated $200,000 to the Biden Action Fund in June.

Despite endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Novogratz said Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) platform “sounds a lot more conservative than the Republican team when you’re talking about their plans.”

“There’s going to be so much pressure to start redistributing wealth whether it’s paying for college, paying for loans, if it’s Medicare for All,” Novogratz said. “Those are things the Democrat Party cares about and there’s going to be pressure and maybe we’re not going to get all of those but we’ll be heading in that direction. So I don’t see our deficits miraculously collapsing.”

Biden and Harris have sought to distance themselves from their large Wall Street backing in recent weeks. Although Biden blasted Wall Street executives in a town hall with the AFL-CIO union, a new report revealed that the former vice president’s campaign has assured Wall Street donors that his administration will maintain an economic status quo to their benefit.

This month, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

  

Biden’s Billionaires

 By Steve McCann

Many years ago, while participating in a voter registration drive, I came upon a grizzled and disheveled old man sitting in the overgrown and weed-infested yard of his paint-starved house calming smoking his pipe.  Despite his gruff demeanor, Ully (Ulysses) was very pleasant and loquacious as we talked for over an hour on topics ranging from the weather to the innate foibles of mankind.  It turned out that he had to leave school after the fourth grade in order to work in the fields to help support his family and had toiled in a variety of menial and labor-intensive jobs ever since.  Yet, he had a deep and thorough insight into human nature.  Among his comments about the rich and ostensibly well-educated was: “All the money in the world cain’t buy a fool a lick of common sense.”

I was reminded of that observation after reading an article describing the 131 billionaires who are pouring millions into the coffers of the Democrat party and Joe Biden’s campaign in their mindless obsession to defeat President Trump in November.  Among the prominent names are Jeff Skoll, a founder of eBay who has contributed $4.5 million; Laurene Powell Jobs of Apple and owner of The Atlantic magazine has donated $1.2 million,  and Josh Bekenstein, Chairman of Bain Capital (co-founded by Mitt Romney), $5 million.  

Far more Wall Street financers have also jumped on the Biden/Democrat party bandwagon than are supporting Donald Trump, whose policies have overwhelmingly revived the economy after the stagnation of the Obama-Biden years. The tech billionaires, not content to simply cough up untold millions in direct political contributions, are also funding massive voter drives, promoting mail-in balloting, creating divisive partisan news sites, aiding and designing the Democrat party’s digital campaigns and unabashedly censoring the social media accounts of the Trump campaign and innumerable conservatives. 

The political party they are gleefully underwriting in order to oust Trump is no longer the party of the middle and working class (which is now one and the same) but a two-tier assemblage in which the prey is sleeping with the predator.  The witless wealthy and socially aware are in bed with the avowed socialists and militant Marxists.  What is holding this marriage of convenience together is a mutual hatred of Donald Trump and the undoable promises made by Joe Biden and the Democrat party hierarchy.

In a 2019 meeting with 100 super-wealthy potential donors, Biden assured the gathering that he would not demonize the rich and would only increase their taxes slightly while ensuring that their standard of living would not be affected by any of his policies.  He also stated: “I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 Billionaires are the reason why we are in trouble”.  Further, he unabashedly emphasized that the wealthy are not the reason for income inequality and “If I win this nomination.  I won’t let you down.  I promise you.”  

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

When the time came to deal with the Marxist/socialist wing of the Democrat party’s anti-Trump coalition, policy commitments, many diametrically opposite of what was promised the wealthy donors, were also guaranteed with a non-verbal pledge of we won’t let you down.

The first step was a de facto party platform.  The 110-page Biden-Sanders Manifesto which includes, among other commitments, a massive job killing $2+ trillion climate agenda to phase out fossil fuel usage within 15 years, the elimination of cash bail, redirecting (i.e. cutting) funding for the police, dismantling all border protections, legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants and massively raising corporate and individual tax rates on the wealthy.  This manifesto is a socialist screed that would destroy the middle class and permanently neuter the economy and nation. 

An effusive Bernie Sanders proclaimed to the world that Biden and the Democrats have embraced his socialist agenda and that Biden would be the most progressive president since FDR.  Sanders exposed not only the behind the scenes reality of today’s Democrat party but Biden’s figurehead role.

Further confirmation of the radicalization of the Party came about unexpectedly as the militant Marxist faction of the Sanders coalition forced the issue.  Impatient and unwilling to wait until after the 3rd of November, Antifa and Black Lives Matter used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to take to the streets and begin their long-hoped for revolution.  They claimed that rioting, looting, committing arson and attacking law enforcement was a necessity as this was a systemically racist country.  Yet, they openly demanded immediate changes rooted in their radical Marxist ideology of class warfare not so-called systemic racism.  As two of their preferred chants and graffiti slogans “eat the rich” and “abolish capitalism now” confirms. 

Biden, the Democrat party hierarchy as well as virtually all Democrat elected officials refused to address the violence and those responsible.  Thus, they tacitly approved of the lawlessness and by doing so flashed a green light to continue the riots.  When forced to acknowledge the reality on the streets of the nation’s cities, they instead blamed Trump, the police, white supremacists and even the Russians.  Due to their spinelessness, the armies of anarchy and revolution Biden and the Democrats unleashed will never be defeated or mollified by them.   

Considering the vast dichotomy in the litany of promises made and actions taken, it is inevitable that either the moneyed elite or the mob of passionate true believers will be betrayed.  There is no middle ground.  Who will prevail? 

Will it be the elites whose only weapon is money and fleeting political influence or the passionate mob whose weapons are unconstrained violence and intimidation?  Will it be those who believe a revolution could never happen here or those who are currently inciting revolution with the implicit blessing of a major political party?  Will it be those who believe that Biden and the Democrats, if elected, will be able to forcefully deal with the insurgents or the insurgents who now know that riots and extortion causes Democrat politicians to cower in the corner?

Beginning with the French Revolution and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, history has recorded that passionate mobs always prevail when dealing with a feckless ruling class or party.  And the first casualties have inevitably been the wealthy elites.

I can envision sitting with my old friend, Ully, and asking him if he thought the wealthy elites, indiscriminately tossing money at the Democrats for the sole purpose of defeating President Trump, understood the pitfalls involved.  He would lean back, slowly exhale a puff of smoke from his well-worn pipe and with uncontrollable anger in his eyes would say: “Nope.  Those damn fools ain’t got a lick of common sense.”

Report: Joe Biden Promises Wall Street Donors the Status Quo in Private Calls

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

8 Sep 2020343

3:50

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising Wall Street donors the economic status quo that they became used to before President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report.

An investment banker on Wall Street told the Washington Post that in private calls with financial executives two months ago, Biden’s campaign assured them that talk of populist reforms on the campaign trail was nothing more than talking points.

The Post reports:

When Joe Biden released economic recommendations two months ago, they included a few ideas that worried some powerful bankers: allowing banking at the post office, for example, and having the Federal Reserve guarantee all Americans a bank account. [Emphasis added]

But in private calls with Wall Street leaders, the Biden campaign made it clear those proposals would not be central to Biden’s agenda. [Emphasis added]

“They basically said, ‘Listen, this is just an exercise to keep the Warren people happy, and don’t read too much into it,’” said one investment banker, referring to liberal supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The banker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks, said that message was conveyed on multiple calls. [Emphasis added]

In a statement to the Post, Biden’s campaign downplayed the influence of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — left populists on trade and economic policy — on the former vice president’s agenda.

“The Biden-Sanders task forces made recommendations to Vice President Biden and to the [Democrat National Committee] platform drafting committee,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo said. “This anonymous source appears to be confused and uninformed about this very basic distinction.”

The report comes as Biden told AFL-CIO members on Labor Day that he will be the “strongest labor president” union workers “have ever had.”

“You can be sure you’ll be hearing that word, ‘union,’ plenty of times when I’m in the White House,” Biden pitched. “The words of a president matter. Union. We’re going to empower workers and empower unions.”

In the Democrat presidential primary, Biden told a group of rich Manhattan donors at a private fundraiser that “nothing would change” for them or their wealthy lifestyles if elected.

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” Biden said at the June 2019 fundraiser.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished,” Biden said. “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

Like failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Biden has enjoyed a cozy relationship with Wall Street executives, along with his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

Most recently, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS AND ENDLESS HORDES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR 


As Bloomberg pledges $100 million,


Wall Street boosts Biden campaign


15 September 2020

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged to spend at least $100 million to support the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in Florida. This announcement Sunday is only the largest pledge of support from the financial oligarchy for the Democratic campaign.

Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey said the pledge of virtually unlimited financial backing to Biden in Florida, the most critical “battleground” state in the 2020 election, “will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular the state of Pennsylvania.”

Florida has 29 electoral votes, the most of any closely contested state, following California with 55, overwhelmingly Democratic, and Texas with 38, leaning Republican. New York state, also with 29 electoral votes, is heavily Democratic.

Only once in the last 60 years—Bill Clinton in 1992—has a candidate won the presidency while losing Florida. The last Republican to lose Florida and still win the White House was Calvin Coolidge in 1924, when the state was lightly populated swampland.

Early voting begins in Florida September 24, and Bloomberg’s money will pay for massive campaign advertising on behalf of Biden, in both English and Spanish. Campaign officials said the funds would be devoted almost entirely to television and digital ads.

Even before the Bloomberg commitment, the Biden campaign and supporting Democratic groups had outspent Trump and the Republicans by $42 million to $32 million. The flood of cash from the billionaire media mogul will give the Democrats a three- or four-to-one advantage over the final seven weeks of the campaign.

The efficacy of Bloomberg’s huge financial commitment is open to question. The media billionaire spent $1 billion (a mere one-fiftieth of his gargantuan personal fortune) on his own pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination. He launched his campaign at a time when he believed Biden’s candidacy was near its demise, hoping that his money might forestall the nomination of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The sudden revival of Biden’s campaign with his victory in South Carolina in February and then in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3 led Bloomberg to abandon his own efforts and endorse the former vice president, since their right-wing views on a range of topics, and particularly on foreign policy, were virtually identical.

Since then, Bloomberg has transferred $20 million from his abortive presidential campaign to the Democratic National Committee, as well as pumping in another $120 million to local, state and congressional campaigns, making him by far the largest single backer of the Democratic Party.

Florida is only the most glaring example of the general trend in the 2020 election, in which the financial oligarchy and Wall Street have indicated a distinct preference for Biden and backed it up with heavy financial commitments.

During August, the Biden campaign broke all records for fundraising in a single month, raking in $365 million, nearly double the previous record of $203 million set by the campaign of Barack Obama in September 2008, and more than Hillary Clinton and Trump combined to raise, in August 2016, $233 million. The Trump campaign also broke the Obama record, but its total of $210 million in August was far behind the pace set by the Democrats.

Approximately $205 million of the $365 million came through online donations, including 1.5 million new donors. This is more an indication of the widespread hostility to Trump among millions of working-class and middle-class people than any groundswell of support for Biden, who personifies the corrupt US political establishment, having spent 36 years in the Senate before his eight years as Obama’s vice president.

That means that $160 million—a near-record amount by itself—was raised through large donations from wealthy supporters of the Democratic Party. While Trump continues to rake in the lion’s share of support from industries such as oil and gas, mining and real estate, Biden has collected the bulk of financial backing from the banks, hedge funds and insurance industry.

Under rules set by the Federal Election Commission, a wealthy donor can now give as much as $830,600 to support a presidential candidate, routing much of the money through federal and state party committees rather than the candidate’s own campaign.

The result of the disparity in fundraising throughout the summer is that the Democratic presidential campaign has now caught up with and even surpassed Trump’s war chest. The Trump reelection campaign, despite raising an unprecedented $1.1 billion, has less cash on hand for the fall than the Biden campaign. According to press accounts, more than one-third of the money raised by the Trump campaign was used to pay the expenses of fundraising itself.

There were several reports last week that the Trump campaign was experiencing a “cash crunch,” and was unable to sustain advertising in all 15 of the so-called battleground states. Both the Washington Post and Bloomberg News reported that Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien has halted television advertising in Michigan and Pennsylvania at least temporarily, and that Biden was outspending Trump in nearly every closely contested state.

Stepien replaced Brad Parscale as campaign manager in July, at least in part because of concerns that Parscale had squandered Trump’s substantial initial fundraising advantage.

According to the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics, the Biden campaign spent $17 million in television and digital advertising in nine battleground states during the week of September 3, compared to $4 million by the Trump campaign.

The Clinton campaign outspent Trump by similar margins in 2016, but Trump campaign aides had boasted they would not face such a deficit in 2020. Trump has hinted he would seek to make up the difference from his personal fortune, but there has been no sign yet of any direct outlay by the billionaire to back his own campaign.

Democrat Congressman: No Spending Package Without Amnesty for Millions of Illegal Aliens

Immigration rights supporters march demanding citizenship for essential workers during a demonstration marking Mayday, in Washington DC, on May 1, 2021. (Photo by Jose Luis Magana / AFP) (Photo by JOSE LUIS MAGANA/AFP via Getty Images)
OSE LUIS MAGANA/AFP via Getty Images
3:47

Rep. Jesús García (D-IL) says he will not support a reconciliation spending package, which only would need majority support in the Senate, that does not include amnesty for illegal aliens.

In exclusive statements to The Hill, García said “a robust and equitable budget reconciliation deal must include” amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, specifically those enrolled and eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and so-called “essential workers.”

García told The Hill:

We must seize this historic opportunity to bring compassion and dignity to our immigration system and provide the certainty that comes with having the legal status that millions of immigrants and their families deserve. [Emphasis added]

This is crucial for thousands of undocumented essential workers I represent. They sacrificed themselves to keep this country running during the worst of the pandemic and frequently had no access to relief or medical assistance for fear of being deported. We owe it to them. [Emphasis added]

As Breitbart News has reported, House and Senate Democrats are looking to slip an expansive amnesty for illegal aliens through the little-known reconciliation process where federal spending can receive approval with only a majority of support in the Senate and no threat of a filibuster to hold up a vote.

One such package by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is expected to include provisions that would force American taxpayers to spend $150 billion on providing amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Likewise, members of the House Progressive Caucus have nearly threatened to tank any package that does not include amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), head of the caucus, said amnesty is one of her “needs” in a reconciliation package:

The amnesty proposals come as corporate interests have boosted their push to inflate the United States labor market by legalizing for American jobs the majority of the nation’s 11 to 22 million illegal aliens.

Center for American Progress, a left-wing lobbying group funded by big corporations, is insisting to lawmakers that amnesty for illegal aliens “can and should be done through the budget reconciliation process.”

In May, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us hired a former assistant Senate parliamentarian to craft a plan for Democrats that would pass amnesty for illegal aliens through reconciliation.

Democrats, along with some House Republicans, have the support of a large amnesty coalition which includes former President George W. Bush, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and a number of Koch brothers-backed organizations.

Already, current immigration levels put downward pressure on U.S. wages while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth away from America’s working and middle class and towards employers and new arrivals, research by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has found.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has repeatedly found that amnesty for illegal aliens would be a net fiscal drain for American taxpayers while driving down U.S. wages.

Every year, 1.2 million legal immigrants receive green cards to permanently resettle in the U.S. In addition, 1.4 million foreign nationals are given visas to take American jobs while hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enter the U.S. annually.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here

WATCH: Large Migrant Group Walks Through Arizona Border Wall

Yuma Sector BP
Volume 90%
 
1:39

On Monday, Yuma Sector Border Patrol agents using infrared cameras observed a group of mostly single adult migrants breaching the border wall and attempting to escape responding agents. The group of 156 were arrested shortly after the entry was observed by camera operators.

The group was observed just west of the San Luis, Arizona, Port of Entry. In all, more than 2,000 migrants were arrested over the July 4 weekend. Normally, Yuma is known as a relatively calm section of the border.

The sector has seen a rise in apprehensions. The groups entering illegally in this area are a troubling sign for Border Patrol in the summer months. Highs in this part of Arizona routinely reach 110 degrees or more. Temperatures this week are forecast to reach 115 degrees. Since January, agents have apprehended more than 100 groups of migrants numbering 50 or greater.

In Fiscal Year 2020, the Yuma Sector was ranked near the bottom for migrant apprehension volume. This year, the number has climbed nearly 800 percent to 47,358, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as of May.

Randy Clark
 is a 32-year veteran of the United States Border Patrol.  Prior to his retirement, he served as the Division Chief for Law Enforcement Operations, directing operations for nine Border Patrol Stations within the Del Rio, Texas, Sector. Follow him on Twitter @RandyClarkBBTX.

Cartel Smugglers Toss Infants, Children into Texas Border River

A Coast Guard riverine crew rescues a group of migrants from a sinking raft on the Rio Grande. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/Rio Grande Valley Sector)
Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/Rio Grande Valley Sector
3:52

Border Patrol agents and Coast Guard crews rescued migrants across the Rio Grande Valley Sector after human smugglers put them in jeopardy. In multiple incidents, smugglers moved women, children, and even infants into the river that separates Texas and Mexico. One woman was saved after an alleged sexual assault attempt.

McAllen Station Border Patrol agents encountered a female migrant on Monday evening who ran toward them. The woman told the agents she had just escaped from an attacker, according to information obtained from Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol officials.

The woman, a Honduran national, had just illegally crossed the border with her husband and a young child, she told the agents. She said the smuggler separated her from her family and told them to hide in a different area. After moving away with the woman, the smuggler forced her to the ground and tore her shirt and pants, officials reported. She began to fight back and eventually escaped and fled to the agents. The agents contacted local law enforcement officials to launch an investigation into the alleged attack. The agents did not find the perpetrator of the assault.

U.S. Coast Guard riverine units patrolling the Rio Grande near Mission, Texas, on Sunday afternoon encountered a raft loaded with nine people, officials stated. The people in the partially deflated raft included a nine-month-old child.

The Coast Guardsmen observed the overloaded raft taking on water and that the migrants had no flotation devices or oars. The migrants called for help and the Coast Guard unit responded by pulling alongside.

The crewmen pulled the nine migrants, including the infant, into their vessel and transported them to the riverbank where Border Patrol agents conducted medical screenings and transported them to the station for processing.

One day earlier, another Coast Guard river patrol working near Penitas, Texas, came upon a group of 20 people attempting to cross the Rio Grande from Mexico. Once again, the raft began to take on water. The two human smugglers abandoned the migrants and swam back to Mexico as the guardsmen approached.

The Coast Guard crew found two more infants among the 20 migrants rescued from the raft. The crew turned the migrants over to McAllen Station Border Patrol agents for processing.

As the Independence Day weekend kicked off on Friday, Kingsville Station Border Patrol agents received an alert from a newly placed rescue beacon located on a ranch near the Javier Vega, Jr. Border Patrol checkpoint. The agents went to the location and found two lost, distressed migrants. The agents transported the two to the Kingsville Border Patrol Station for a medical screening and processing.

In addition to these rescues, agents assigned to the Falfurrias Border Patrol Checkpoint in Brooks County, Texas, found 70 more migrants locked inside a tractor-trailer.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior news contributor for the Breitbart Texas-Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Price is a regular panelist on Fox 26 Houston’s What’s Your Point? Sunday-morning talk show. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.


Illegal Alien Out of Jail on Bail Accused of Beheading Man, Playing ‘Soccer with His Head’

DACSO
DACSO
2:46

An illegal alien out of jail on bail in New Mexico is now accused of beheading a man and then kicking the man’s head around like a soccer ball, Breitbart News has learned.

Joel Arciniega-Saenz, a 25-year-old illegal alien, was indicted by a grand jury this week after being arrested for allegedly murdering 51-year-old James Garcia in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, the day after Father’s Day.

According to court records obtained by KTSM 9 News, Arciniega-Saenz is accused of decapitating Garcia before mutilating the rest of his body and kicking his head around like a soccer ball. At the time of the murder, Arciniega-Saenz was out on bail, according to Las Cruces Sun-News.

When arrested after Garcia’s mutilated body was found 10 yards from his head, Arciniega-Saenz allegedly confessed to the murder, telling investigators that he was seeking revenge because he believed Garcia had raped his wife four years prior.

At the park where Garcia’s body was found, Arciniega-Saenz allegedly confessed to confronting the man before stabbing him with a switchblade, decapitating him, and then playing “soccer with his head,” according to an affidavit.

Arciniega-Saenz allegedly told investigators he kicked Garcia’s decapitated head at about 14 vehicles nearby.

CBS 4 News reported that Arciniega-Saenz had an extensive criminal record. In 2017, he was accused of first-degree murder but a year later, the charges were dropped. In May, Arciniega-Saenz was arrested when he was caught throwing rocks at businesses.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seemingly confirmed to Breitbart News that Arciniega-Saenz is an illegal alien in the United States with an ICE detainer on him, requesting that local authorities do not release him from jail until they can assume custody.

“Under federal law, ICE has the authority to lodge immigration detainers with law enforcement partners who have custody of individuals arrested on criminal charges and who ICE has probable cause to believe are removable noncitizens,” an ICE official told Breitbart News.


“The detainer form asks the other law enforcement agency to notify ICE in advance of release and to maintain custody of the noncitizen for a brief period of time so that ICE can take custody of that person in a safe and secure setting upon release from that agency’s custody,” the official said.

Arciniega-Saenz is being held at the Dona Ana County Detention Center without bail.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here


'This Is the Wild West Again': The Border Crisis Is Putting Northern Los Angeles County Residents In Danger

Julio Rosas
|
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2021 3:00 PM
'This Is the Wild West Again': The Border Crisis Is Putting Northern Los Angeles County Residents In Danger

Source: Townhall Media/Julio Rosas

PALMDALE, Calif. — Being followed when they leave the house. Being shown pictures of a bullet-ridden truck with a person still inside. Encountering aggressive drivers on roads. Having illegal grow houses next door. Having water stolen from their farms. These are some of the examples of what northern Los Angeles County residents say they have experienced by the people who are running illegal marijuana farms.

The residents, close to a dozen, gathered on Tuesday to share their stories and to hear an update on law enforcement taking action against the drug-growing operations. They all wanted to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation from the cartels.

Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA) and Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told the meeting when they each did an air tour of the areas in north L.A. County, they realized it was as bad as the calls were saying it was. The problem has been persistent for a while, but it gained major steam within the last year.

"We did a survey way back in 2020, during the [COVID-19] pandemic...150 illegal grows, the ones you can count easily from the air. So when we did it again this year, that number grew to 500 in one year. So there was a noticeable shift in acceleration," Villanueva explained, adding the illegal dispensaries are outnumbering the legal businesses 50-1.

In neighboring San Bernardino County, Villanueva said law enforcement there counted over 860 illegal marijuana farms when they conducted their own survey.

In June, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration launched an operation to destroy the illegal pot farms and confiscate the plants. With the operation lasting ten days, Villanueva said they only were able to knock out around 40 percent of the known illegal marijuana farms. Around $1.2 billion in street value marijuana was seized and over 90 firearms were confiscated.

Villanueva said while they have the manpower, the will, and the plans to continue combatting the illegal growing operations, the constant issue is funding. The increase in cartel activity in northern L.A. County is occurring at the same time as violent crime is rising in the metropolitan areas and the sheriff's department is operating with 145 million fewer dollars in its budget.

With the massive number of illegal farms, their biggest issue is the same as anyone who lives in the desert climate: water. Each plant requires three gallons of water per day, leading the cartels to steal water from residents and farms.

"I have, within a mile, probably four or five [illegal pot farms]. They've been busted a few times...they're outside, they're not in houses," one resident told me, adding it's not the drug that's the issue, "it's the people behind the drug."

"Everything they're doing to the environment and to the groundwater. They were stealing our water. They had a mile and a half waterline that went across the road...they were pumping the water out and our water company only services 35 homes, so once the water's gone, it's gone."

One couple described how, while hiking in the places they have hiked for years, one of the cartel workers approached and threatened them to never return to the area.

"He showed us a picture of a truck, by the way, they have pictures of us, they know where we live... He showed us a truck with three bullet holes in it and the guy was still in it. And he said, 'This is what will happen to you if you come back out again.' So we are always followed and they're always watching us... they watch us all the time," they said.

"We're not sure what to do at this point because we hiked those mountains for 25 years. We've hiked those mountains numerous times, never been bothered... now we can't even do anything," they added. "We're scared. We go out to our yard, they're right there!"

They said while they do not have a problem giving the information over to law enforcement, they are worried the cartels will find out where the information came from and kill them. 

Another resident said the issue they run into with reporting the illegal farms is that there are so many that law enforcement puts them on a list and they do not know which ones are a priority to get rid of. Villanueva said he prioritizes the farms that are nearby the residential areas along with loosening the "may-issue" requirements for residents to obtain concealed carry firearm permits so they can better protect themselves.

Garica promised the residents that everyone from the city to the federal level is still committed to putting pressure on the cartels who run the farms but acknowledged "this is the wild west again."

Garica told me he believes part of the reason why the expansion of illegal pot farms got out of hand is because officials viewed the product as harmless but did not factor in those who operate the farms. He also said the increase in illegal grows and cash going to the cartels is a byproduct of the current crisis at the southern border.

"Right now what the cartels have in the local areas now: unlimited resources, a zero-cost basis crop, and they've got effectively free indentured labor and the bench for that is extremely deep. Basically, an unlimited employee base to tap into as these borders are open," he said, noting they are around 200 miles north of the border and yet the cartels are operating with a lot of freedom in his district.

"We're done with it. This is not going to happen anymore," is what Garica said his message is to the cartels.

Villanueva told the meeting many of the workers they took into custody during the operation were in the country illegally and some had come to the United States only a week before. While he said he does not get involved in immigration enforcement, he did say the border needs to be secured to stem the "steady supply" of workers coming into the country illegally to work the farms.


Super rich’s wealth concentration surpasses Gilded Age levels

·Senior Writer
·3 min read
FILE - In this June 6, 2019, file photo Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks at the the Amazon re:MARS convention in Las Vegas.  The Amazon founder officially stepped down as CEO on Monday, July 5, 2021, handing over the reins as the company navigates the challenges of a world fighting to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic. Andy Jassy, the head of Amazon’s cloud-computing business, replaced Bezos, a change the company had announced in February.  (AP Photo/John Locher, File)

The wealth of the richest 0.00001% of the U.S. now exceeds that of the prior historical peak, which occurred in the Gilded Age, according to economist Gabriel Zucman.

In the late 19th century, the U.S. experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth, creating an inordinate amount of wealth for a handful of families. This era was also known for its severe inequality; and some have called the period that began around 1990 a “Second Gilded Age.” Back then, just four families represented the richest 0.00001% – today’s equivalent is 18 families.

Zucman, a French economist whose doctoral advisor was the historical economist Thomas Piketty, author of bestseller “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” released data this week showing that as of July 1, the top 0.00001% richest people in the U.S. held 1.35% of the country’s total wealth. These 18 families include those of Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Zucman used real-time data from Forbes for the calculations. In 1913, at the end of the Gilded Age, the Rockefeller, Frick, Carnegie, and Baker families – names all tied to monopolistic power – held 0.85% of the country's total wealth.

The richest 0.01% — around 18,000 U.S. families — have also surpassed the wealth levels reached in the Gilded Age. These families hold 10% of the country’s wealth today, Zucman wrote. By comparison, in 1913, the top 0.1% held 9% of U.S. wealth, and a mere 2% in the late 1970s.

The increasing concentration of wealth comes as the ultra-rich face more scrutiny for the money they’re not paying in taxes. Recent reports have highlighted that because so much of their wealth consists of unrealized gains in stocks and real estate, they pay little or nothing in income tax. Many CEOs and founders take small salaries given their outsized stock holdings, as lower capital gains tax is preferable to a higher tax on ordinary income.

Seated portrait of John Davison Rockefeller (1839 - 1937), American oil  magnate, early twentieth century. (Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images)
Seated portrait of John Davison Rockefeller (1839 - 1937), American oil magnate, early 20th century. (Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images)

Zucman gained fame in 2019 as an architect of then-presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan, which aimed to address the fact that the extremely rich pay little in taxes compared to their net worth. The plan would have imposed a 2% tax on net wealth above $50 million and 6% above $1 billion.

Since the pandemic began, the stock market’s gains have widened the gap between the wealthy and non-wealthy because stock ownership is largely concentrated among wealthy people. The number of millionaires globally jumped 5.2 million to 56.1 million, according to Credit Suisse. Though the pandemic’s wealth gains largely benefitted the richest Americans, “most” Americans did fare well financially during the pandemic, according to the Federal Reserve. Around $13.5 trillion of wealth was added to all households. Still, while a large portion of the country got somewhat richer, the rich saw most of that, with the top 1% seeing a third of the $13.5 trillion and the top 20% seeing 70% of it.

No comments: